Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was The HSCA's conclusion helpful to the case of certain 'Conspiracy Theories'


Recommended Posts

In this comment, Paul Trejo said the following:

Quote

The nonsense that LHO shot JFK from the TSBD has been laid bare by the US Government itself.  The WC and its great supporters: Posner and Bugliosi -- are not the last word from the US Government, rather, the HSCA (1979) has the latest official word -- that "JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy." 

In this comment I asked the following question:

Paul, are you saying that the HSCA conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy helps back up your theory on what happened?

*Paul has replied and hopefully will copy his response to this thread for further discussion. For the moment then it may be prudent to not respond further until Paul has posted his response first. ;)

 

Edited by Alistair Briggs
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to reply on two planes:

 

1.  As per the HSCA conclusion backing up what Trejo says happened, I cannot see that in any way.  And this includes not just the report, but also the declassified HSCA files, of which I am fairly familiar.  Much more so that I think Paul is.  If anyone knows anything differently, that is that the report or the files fortifies either Trejo or Caufield in any substantial way, then please indicate where.

2.  The acoustics evidence which so impacted the HSCA final conclusion of conspiracy has been argued about for decades.  One can criticize it on many points of omission, that is the firing points chosen.  And many have argued the validity of the actual tape.  IMO, Don Thomas has done some  good work fending off these criticisms. And as I said, there is something else in the pipeline that will help Thomas.  I will comment on that when it arrives.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

In this comment, Paul Trejo said the following:

In this comment I asked the following question:

Paul, are you saying that the HSCA conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy helps back up your theory on what happened?

*Paul has replied and hopefully will copy his response to this thread for further discussion. For the moment then it may be prudent to not respond further until Paul has posted his response first. ;)

 

Alistair,

Yes, I am saying that the HSCA conclusion that "JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy" supports my CT that the Dallas Police, led by General Walker, were the primary forces who killed JFK in Dallas.

The fact of the acoustic evidence strongly suggests at least one shot from the Grassy Knoll -- and countless WC eye-witnesses heard shots from the Grassy Knoll.   That all by itself backs up my theory of what happened in the JFK assassination.

Behind the Grassy Knoll was a parking lot for the Dallas County Jail, including many Sheriff Deputies.  There was only one way in, and one way out of that lot -- through a gate on the southeast side of the lot, locked by padlock, and only people with paid reservations had the key to that padlock.  

Now, many Sheriff Deputies had many pals who were DPD cops, so, DPD cops were commonly seen behind the picket fence of that Grassy Knoll as well.  

That is why it is no surprise that "Badgeman" could be seen in a photograph of the Grassy Knoll during the JFK assassination -- and other people with DPD badges surrounding him.  

That is also why it is no surprise that when people rushed up to the Grassy Knoll, all they saw were DPD cops.  It was 1963, so very few people suspected that the DPD cops were the shooters.  IMHO, that's precisely who they were.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

With no contentions on my part, here are the 'Conclusions' reached by the HSCA, as a point of reference.I have separated the 'conclusions' from the 'further conclusions'.

Quote

Conclusions regarding the Kennedy assassination

On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

  1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
  2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
  3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen 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 Kennedy.
    • The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of 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 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 Kennedy, but that 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 Kennedy.
  4. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.

 

Quote

The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:

  • four shots were fired
  • the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. The HSCA concluded the existence and location of this alleged fourth shot based on the later discredited Dallas Police Department Dictabelt recording analysis.

The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory,  but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.

The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for not revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was deemed deficient in their protection of the President.

The HSCA made several accusations of deficiency against the FBI and CIA. The accusations encompassed organizational failures, miscommunication, and a desire to keep certain parts of their operations secret. Furthermore, the Warren Commission expected these agencies to be forthcoming with any information that would aid their investigation. But the FBI and CIA only saw it as their duty to respond to specific requests for information from the commission. However, the HSCA found the FBI and CIA were deficient in performing even that limited role.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSCA came to their 'conclusion' at the eleventh hour following the appraisal of the acoustic evidence. I put 'conclusion' in quotes because it's not really a conclusion, in my opinion, since it states that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy. It is my understanding that, until then, the HSCA were moving towards the invevitable conclusion that the Warren Commission (and the DPD for that matter) reached in the wake of the assasination the previous decade.

The vast majority of witnesses heard only three shots, and the only bullets found (fragmentary or otherwise) were determined to have originated from a single source. Furthermore, the acoustic evidence was comprehensively invalidated over thirty years ago. So as far as I'm aware there remains no hard evidence that supports an additional shooter or shooters either on the Grassy Knoll or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza on that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Yes, I am saying that the HSCA conclusion that "JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy" supports my CT that the Dallas Police, led by General Walker, were the primary forces who killed JFK in Dallas.

Paul,

From reading the entire conclusion of the HSCA, they have, in overly simplistic terms, 3 shots coming from the 'Sniper's Nest' and 1 shot coming from the 'Grassy Knoll'. In their conlusion they further state that the 3 shots were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald with his 2nd and 3rd shot hitting JFK (his last one being the fatal shot) and they state that the 1 shot from the 'Grassy Knoll' missed...

Irrespective of who actually took the shots, and irrespective of which ones actually hit or missed, the HSCA used the 'acoustic evidence' to conclude a total of 4 shots; 3 shots coming from the 'Sniper's Nest' and 1 shot coming from the 'Grassy Knoll'

So, when you say the following:

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The fact of the acoustic evidence strongly suggests at least one shot from the Grassy Knoll -- and countless WC eye-witnesses heard shots from the Grassy Knoll.   That all by itself backs up my theory of what happened in the JFK assassination.

You seem to be 'overplaying your hand' so to speak. Allow me to 'fix' that for you. ;)

The fact of the acoustic evidence strongly suggests one shot only from the Grassy Knoll.

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That is why it is no surprise that "Badgeman" could be seen in a photograph of the Grassy Knoll during the JFK assassination -- and other people with DPD badges surrounding him. 

Setting aside that 'badgeman' may just be an 'illusion' of sorts... I can honestly say that in any image of 'badgeman' that I've seen I have never seen other people with DPD badges surrounding him...

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That is also why it is no surprise that when people rushed up to the Grassy Knoll, all they saw were DPD cops.  It was 1963, so very few people suspected that the DPD cops were the shooters.  IMHO, that's precisely who they were.

I'm not sure that when people rushed up to the Grassy Knoll ALL they saw were DPD cops. Happy to be shown otherwise. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the experts on the acoustics evidence, Charles Rader, discusses the matter in the interview below, which serves as a good overview of the "Acoustics / 4th Shot" issue....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-acoustics-charles-rader-interview.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

The HSCA came to their 'conclusion' at the eleventh hour following the appraisal of the acoustic evidence. I put 'conclusion' in quotes because it's not really a conclusion, in my opinion, since it states that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy. It is my understanding that, until then, the HSCA were moving towards the invevitable conclusion that the Warren Commission (and the DPD for that matter) reached in the wake of the assasination the previous decade.

The vast majority of witnesses heard only three shots, and the only bullets found (fragmentary or otherwise) were determined to have originated from a single source. Furthermore, the acoustic evidence was comprehensively invalidated over thirty years ago. So as far as I'm aware there remains no hard evidence that supports an additional shooter or shooters either on the Grassy Knoll or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza on that day.

Paul Baker makes a very pertinent point here.

*In terms of the discussion in hand, there will be those who say the acoustic evidence has been invalidated and there will be those who say it hasn't. I will try and take something of a 'neutral' stance on the acoustic evidence...

The way I look at it then is that if the acoustic evidence is wrong then, as Paul Baker alludes to, the HSCA fundamentally were in agreement with the WC. If the acoustic evidence is correct then, even still the HSCA fundamentally were in agreement with the WC but with the added 'caveat' of a 4th shot...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

A significant number of people reported more than three shots. Likewise, many people reported 2 shots in quick succession., indicating two gunmen. Then of course, there is the impossibility of the pristine, magic bullet.

Of the testimony from 178 witnesses to the HSCA concerning the number of shots fired, 132 said they heard three (74%) and just six said they heard four (3%). Those that heard two, or two to three, number 24 (13%). So the number that heard four or more with respect to those that heard three or fewer is not significant. 

The so-called 'magic' bullet wasn't pristine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

The acoustics evidence has not been refuted. If you are interested in the truth, I suggest you read ¨Hear No Evil¨by Don Thomas. He devotes three chapters to the acoustics investigation, entitled ¨Ballastics acoustics¨, ¨The acoustics challenged¨and ¨The acoustics in prime time¨. Every assertion by the so called acoustics experts of the government  that the results of BBN´s investigation are false is rebutted by Thomas. The government does not have any scientists who are qualified to challenge the results. Thomas makes it easy for a layman to understand the acoustics ... one needs to have a limited knowledge of statistics, standard deviation, ect., the math is simple.

Although only two shooter positions were used (there were four) the results were amazingly accurate and are in agreement with the blur analysis of Alvarez, Hartmann and Scott.

BBN concluded there were six candidate shots, one of which was discarded by BBN because (the first shot) did not have the required 11 echo peaks. The other five did have the required number of peaks but Blakely for political reasons discarded one. So that is why the HSCA settled on four.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

The HSCA came to their 'conclusion' at the eleventh hour following the appraisal of the acoustic evidence. I put 'conclusion' in quotes because it's not really a conclusion, in my opinion, since it states that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy. It is my understanding that, until then, the HSCA were moving towards the invevitable conclusion that the Warren Commission (and the DPD for that matter) reached in the wake of the assasination the previous decade.

The vast majority of witnesses heard only three shots, and the only bullets found (fragmentary or otherwise) were determined to have originated from a single source. Furthermore, the acoustic evidence was comprehensively invalidated over thirty years ago. So as far as I'm aware there remains no hard evidence that supports an additional shooter or shooters either on the Grassy Knoll or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza on that day.

Paul Baker,

While it is true that only three bullets were found, it is equally true that the Dallas Police were the ones who found those three bullets, and were charged with finding more. 

Insofar as the Dallas Police may have themselves been involved in the plot to assassinate JFK (Brown, 1995, Caufield, 2015) the odds of finding further bullets would of course be zero.  Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig testified that he saw Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers pick up a bullet on the south lawn of Dealey Plaza, and Buddy Walthers strongly denied the claim.

Yet we must conclude that there are two sides to that story.

Aside from that, plenty of WC witnesses testified to at least one shot from the Grassy Knoll.   It really depends on which WC witnesses one chooses to accept.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2017 at 9:53 PM, James DiEugenio said:

2.  The acoustics evidence which so impacted the HSCA final conclusion of conspiracy has been argued about for decades.  One can criticize it on many points of omission, that is the firing points chosen.  And many have argued the validity of the actual tape.  IMO, Don Thomas has done some  good work fending off these criticisms. And as I said, there is something else in the pipeline that will help Thomas.  I will comment on that when it arrives.

James, I look forward to reading your comment when it arrives - any rough idea of when that may be?

Regards

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

BBN concluded there were six candidate shots, one of which was discarded by BBN because (the first shot) did not have the required 11 echo peaks. The other five did have the required number of peaks but Blakely for political reasons discarded one. So that is why the HSCA settled on four.

George, I am intrigued to know more about this do you have any links to any articles about it?

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...