Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

[David G. Healy]

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #32

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

The silence has been deafening... on to the next:

32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the

weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the

Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the

Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not

inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance"

of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit*

that these attempts are historical and known?

And, I might add, (although an honest answer would be a surprise) what does the

fact of these two previous attempts suggest in terms of a "Lone Nut/Conspiracy"

theory of Dallas?

eof

Edited May 16, 2008 by David G. Healy

[pierre]

Earl Warren allegedly said:

"Never in our lifetimes would we know the entire truth of what happened in Dallas."

• When did he make this statement. Can it be read on a specific document (except quote on Jim Marrs's "Crossfire book")?
  

• If true, did he mean the findings were not quite conclusive?
  

Thank you.

[David G. Healy]

Earl Warren allegedly said:

"Never in our lifetimes would we know the entire truth of what happened in Dallas."

• When did he make this statement. Can it be read on a specific document (except quote on Jim Marrs's "Crossfire book")?
  

• If true, did he mean the findings were not quite conclusive?
  

Thank you.

Pretty sure I know the source, let me confirm it and I'll get back to you soonest...

[David G. Healy]

Earl Warren allegedly said:

"Never in our lifetimes would we know the entire truth of what happened in Dallas."

• When did he make this statement. Can it be read on a specific document (except quote on Jim Marrs's "Crossfire book")?
  

• If true, did he mean the findings were not quite conclusive?
  

Thank you.

From a Vanity Fair article:

"Back in 1964, asked whether his Commission's documents would be made

public, Chief Justice Earl Warren replied, "Yes, there will come a

time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to

anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve

security. This would be preserved but not made public."" [NY Times; 2/5/64]

[Tom Kiehl]

Interesting DH....keep it coming

[Duke Lane]

Earl Warren allegedly said:

"Never in our lifetimes would we know the entire truth of what happened in Dallas."

• When did he make this statement. Can it be read on a specific document (except quote on Jim Marrs's "Crossfire book")?
  

• If true, did he mean the findings were not quite conclusive?
  

Thank you.

From a Vanity Fair article:

"Back in 1964, asked whether his Commission's documents would be made

public, Chief Justice Earl Warren replied, "Yes, there will come a

time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to

anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve

security. This would be preserved but not made public."" [NY Times; 2/5/64]

I think the original quote from Pierre was an amalgamation of Earl Warren's statement above and Jack Ruby's post-conviction press conference (

).

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Earl Warren allegedly said:

"Never in our lifetimes would we know the entire truth of what happened in Dallas."

• When did he make this statement. Can it be read on a specific document (except quote on Jim Marrs's "Crossfire book")?
  

• If true, did he mean the findings were not quite conclusive?
  

Thank you.

From a Vanity Fair article:

"Back in 1964, asked whether his Commission's documents would be made

public, Chief Justice Earl Warren replied, "Yes, there will come a

time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to

anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve

security. This would be preserved but not made public."" [NY Times; 2/5/64]

Quite possibly referring to Mexico City???