W. Tracy Parnell

5 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Reading this I get the feeling that Witt may have decided to take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be in the limelight and made up a fancy story. Maybe he was a frustrated and disillusioned loner yearning to be "important"...

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.

21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why are you continuing the cover-up?

It's a tribal group-think no amount of fact can alleviate.

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?

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I mean you do know about this right?  And you leave it out for what reason?  Brevity?  You don't think its important?

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

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, that's not how the cover-up went down, in my book.

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?

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

I don't buy the House testimony at all by the alleged umbrella man.

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

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Withholding evidence, for whatever reason, is enough to have a case thrown out.  That is America that is what this country stands for.

To publish a government report which you admit - thank you- had information withheld from, and to label an American guilty of a crime simply is wrong.

And, really, inconvenient facts?  It is highly relevant to an honest investigation that there was a conspiracy to get Castro.  It is extremely relevant that the SS did not notify the w.c. of the several prior attempts recent on JFK.  I could go on, but, to suggest innocent motives is absurd because just by tampering or withholding the evidence, for whatever reason, the motives cannot be innocent because it is inherently wrong.  Don't you understand that?

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.

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

Then why waste your time here?  More specifically, why waste your time with me?  Publish your "irrefutable" work where it will do some good.  Get it endorsed by reputable members of the scientific community and published in a recognized, peer-reviewed medical or forensic journal.  Or have you attempted this and discovered that not everyone shares your view that it's irrefutable?

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.

31 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In other words, the fact of conspiracy belongs in the subtext -- or else this discussion is intellectually dishonest.

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

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

information was withheld from the w.c.

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.

24 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said:

I respectfully request otherwise.  Yes, this discussion is often contentious and sometimes testy (or worse), but as a newbie to this quest for - by now ongoing since November of 1963 - I am learning much from the best of the researchers here.  Please be respectful - but please do  keep this message thread open.  ML

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."

3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Was there a coverup by government individuals then?  Yes or no?

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.

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Was there a conspiracy to cover up relevant facts to the assassination and mislead the Warren Ommission?  Yes or no?

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.

5 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

the LNer scum

Really uncalled for.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you believe this?  It existed in the sixties but not now.

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.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So he goes to the president of NBC.  He pitches his idea.  The guy replies with words to the effect, Alec, thanks, but we have come to terms  with the official story on that subject.

Maybe NBC didn't think the program would garner a decent rating. Many young people don't know who JFK was.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

FInally, the MSM has a leftwing slant?

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.

1 minute ago, Mathias Baumann said:

He'd been on the radio and in the newspapers before. Why carry out an assassination if handing out left-wing leaflets could have the same effect WITHOUT risking your life? If you and Lance are right about Oswald, now would've been the time for him to tell the world about his great thoughts, how his "Athenian" system would change the world and all that stuff. But he didn't do that. Why?

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.

5 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

But if he did it to become a hero, as Lance suggests, why would he then not openly boast about it? Wasn't that supposedly the whole point? To become famous?

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.

17 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Tracy, as I said this is happening. You should get out of your filter bubble.

OK, I'll watch for it.

17 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Do you think there'll ever be a new government investigation?

No, nor should there be.

17 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

You know how John Roselli died, don't you? There's nothing mysterious about it. He was strangled, cut to pieces, stuffed into a barrel and thrown into the ocean.

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.

6 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Let's assume you're right. Oswald killed the President to become a Great Hero. Why would he then deny everything?

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

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I mean, you need to read some stuff about how the Power Elite works.  Either that or you are feigning obtuseness. 

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.

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Due to a group-think imposed on the publishing industry in 1967 by J. Edgar Hoover who leaned on all the publishers who inquired to him privately about all this conspiracy stuff.

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

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe the events of November 23rd were the product of the state of his marriage, the shift of his Marxist fantasies from the USSR to Cuba, the desperation flowing from his failed trip to Mexico City, the dumb luck that the Kennedy motorcade was going to pass directly beneath his window, and the last glimmers of hope to fulfill his destiny as a Great Figure In History (either in Cuba as the Revolutionary Hero Who Killed the American President or in the U.S. as the Great Marxist Thinker who used the assassination to give himself a forum for his grand views about all that is wrong with the world).

In short, I believe his life had reached a crescendo of desperation and that he was a bitter, angry and frustrated character who seized an opportunity that Fate seemed to have handed to him on a platter.

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

40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The only way anyone has ever done this is by cheating.  The Warren Commission cheated (wrong height and stationary targets); the HSCA never even really tried to duplicate it, they only did timing tests; and CBS cheated by enlarging the target.  

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

21 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Roselli was brutally killed when he started talking about the Kennedy assassination.

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?

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

in case you haven't noticed that's already happening.

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?