W. Tracy Parnell

The reason CTs give most often for disbelieving Witt is his testimony does not completely match his actions in the Zapruder film. But we know if we were to make a spreadsheet of what every witness said and compare it to the films made that day (and other information), there would be many, many discrepancies. So, Witt (speaking 15 years after the fact) was one of many witnesses whose memory did not match actual events. Completely normal.

I don't have the power to "continue the cover-up" on my own but I am glad you think that highly of me. But seriously, I wish anyone from the CT camp would answer my question and this includes Jim D. If the media continues a cover-up to this day, how do you explain Morley?

I didn't bother because I knew you would kindly jump in and provide it Jim.

But none of what you said explains why the current media and power brokers would continue the cover-up. How do you explain Jefferson Morley, for example? Or is he just posturing on behalf of the conspiracy?

Cory, it could not be more obvious that Louis Witt was the umbrella man. Check out this article by EF member Ron Ecker that contains a good graphic by Jerry Organ: http://www.ronaldecker.com/umbrella.html

First, the WC was a fact-finding body, not a legal proceeding. If LHO had not been killed and had been tried in Dallas, he would have been judged guilty or innocent on the evidence from Dallas, not by what the CIA or FBI was doing. And he would have been found guilty very, very quickly.

I have made this same suggestion repeatedly Lance to several members here. But you see, they can't because the "evil conspiracy" controls the media and academia and no one will listen to them.

So, we can't even have a discussion with you unless we admit a conspiracy?

As I have said that is a fact. However, if we revisit Paul Hoch's idea it changes the view. Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission and former CIA Director who had authorized the initial Castro assassination plots. He never said a word about this to the WC. Bobby Kennedy also remained silent, which is not surprising since he was more involved with the next generation of plots than even JFK. Do these facts prove that Dulles and RFK were involved in a conspiracy? Or do they indicate that the CIA didn't think John and Jane Q. Public or the WC or anyone else were ready for such a reality? So, the simple withholding of evidence does not prove a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, but rather a simple desire to prevent certain inconvenient facts from coming out. And there were several other instances within the CIA alone where the same thing undoubtedly happened. Add in the FBI and who knows what other agencies and you have a good idea of why it might look like a cover-up. It was, but not an assassination-related one.

Very good point Mark and thanks for bringing it up. As I write this, there are 12 members and 71 guests on the board. Many of these individuals could well be "newbies" and would benefit greatly from the discussions between the more knowledgeable members of the respective camps. I think some of the experts here may not think of that reality.

Morley refers to it as a "debate" but the Sixth Floor website calls it a "conversation."

Strictly speaking-yes. But if the purpose was to cover-up things they didn't want the WC (or anyone) to know-such as the Castro assassination plots rather than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK-so what? They naturally didn't want that juicy fact about Castro to get out. And BTW, Bobby Kennedy didn't mention it either. And every agency doubtless had their own little secrets. So, in that sense there was an innocuous conspiracy to keep certain secrets.

Getting back to the subject of this thread which is Litwin's book, here is what Paul Hoch said on that subject (and I agree with him): My model is that there were many coverups, probably many independent ones … One possibility-ironically- is that Oswald did it alone but so many people had things to cover up [unrelated to any assassination plot] that the reaction of the government made it look like the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.

Really uncalled for.

I didn't say it actually existed in the sixties. Only that your idea makes more sense when applied to that timeframe because of the limited media compared to today. Maybe NBC didn't think the program would garner a decent rating. Many young people don't know who JFK was. I understand many on the left deny a left-wing media bias. It is all in the eye of the beholder I guess. And no, I don't think Hillary is liberal by the current standard.

He couldn't do that without some admission of guilt. In other words, he had to maintain his innocence in order to stay alive and spouting off about his political beliefs would not be consistent with that. He would have also wanted to obtain counsel and see where he stood before saying anything. As I said, I think he would have hoped for a deal, but that was doubtful. But all of this is just my speculation based on his personality as I understand it and we'll never know for sure.

He was already famous and standing before the news cameras. No need to be stupid and admit the deed and get yourself a quick death. I believe he would have confessed if he could have avoided the death penalty and then later recanted. But in Texas, he probably would not have been offered a deal. In any case, he would have played the system for as long as he could.

OK, I'll watch for it. No, nor should there be. I was just concerned that you bought into the "mystery deaths" theory that dozens and dozens of witnesses were wiped out. Perhaps you don't then.

Two words. Death penalty. LHO was deluded, mixed up and so on. But as you say, he wasn't stupid.

I guess I am dense because I don't understand how the "power elite" can continue to control the media in this age of Internet blogging. Your argument makes some sense, at least, in the sixties when the outlets were limited. But not today. BTW, presumably this evil "power elite" is on the political right? If so, it is surprising that they cannot control the left-wing slant from the current mainstream media. Nor do they seem to be able to control the thousands of bloggers working for the left. So, yes I am having trouble following your argument. I think it would be a simple matter to get the message out to the masses that a conspiracy in the JFK has been "proven." Perhaps the reality is people just don't believe you.

So, it is your position that journalists honor this dictum from the long-dead Hoover to this day?

Perfect summary of the elusive motive that CTs are so concerned about.

Ever hear of Michael Yardley? He did it easily. Now, I will grant you that he was an expert and LHO was not. But what LHO accomplished (2 out of 3 hits in 8 or so seconds) was very possible given his ability. http://www.positiveshooting.com/kennedyassassinationlatest.html

Mathias, you don't believe the silly "mystery deaths" stuff do you? Mark Lane was one of the original conspiracy theorists and he died of old age. Jean Hill was a Dealey Plaza witness who told her story to anyone and everyone who would listen and wrote a book. She died of natural causes (undisputed as far as I know). I could go on and on. Why didn't "they" wipe out everyone?

I await the press conference announcing they have cracked the case. BTW Mathias, if you believe people like the ones you mention have reversed the WC and HSCA findings that LHO did it alone, how do you account for the fact that the mainstream media and the history book publishers have not picked up on this? Wouldn't this be the story of the century? Or could it be that the books are merely speculative in nature rather than scientific or legal proofs?