Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Quote by PaulBaker

"

* Beverley Oliver, Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffmann et al. are not honest, reliable witnesses."

Only in your opinion, Paul. Why on earth would these people lie?

I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion here, Ray.

Why did these people say what they did? To garner attention? To give their otherwise unnoteworthy lives a veneer of significance? I don't know. People do things like this all of the time, don't they? I'm sure that certain high-profile conspiracy theorists behave in a similar way. Certainly when something big happens, we see these people crawl out of the woodwork. Their motivation isn't important, however. What's important is that their claims can be fairly easily unpicked.

Beverley Oliver claimed she was The Babushka Lady. Clearly she was not. Look at the photographs. Also, she claimed that she filmed the assassination with a camera that didn't exist at that time. Her film has never materialised. Complete nonsense that she elaborated on with events she supposedly witnessed before the assassination.

Jean Hill didn't see a Grassy Knoll shooter in 1963. Later she did. Later she said she came up with the term 'Grassy Knoll'! She claimed attempts were made on her life, but apparently those same people that murdered JFK in broad daylight couldn't come up with a means of killing Hill, and evidently gave up after a few tries. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Listen to her interview on Black Op Radio. Anyone who believes she is credible based on that is, for want of a better word, stupid.

Gordon Arnold. I'm not sure what the politically correct word was for his condition but I'd describe him as a retard. He stopped at Dealey Plaza on a whim, to film a 'parade' (his words). He had no idea what that parade was about until he saw the President come around the corner. He decided to tell his story over a decade later when - I think - the HSCA proceedings were in the news. His experience is not supported by any evidence. He is not in any photo. His statement on that appalling documentary series The Men Who Killed Kennedy says it all: "There is no doubt in my mind I was there". And I'm sure there wasn't. 

Ed Hoffmann. A deaf mute who, according to his own family, was a fantasist and completely unreliable. It seems to me that his account has been lifted out of a James Bond film. Again, I don't think there's any evidence that he was really there (correct me if I'm wrong). Again, his story changed over the years and only first came to light several years after the assassination.

This isn't about summary dismissal of anyone's claims that support the conspiracy story. Nothing any of them have said is backed up by other witnesses, photographic or physical evidence. Only Jean Hill was there, and for whatever reason decided over the years to embellish her story. Mary Moorman, standing next to Hill at the time, can't corroborate any of her claims.

It's a no-brainer. Though of course, many conspiracy theorists like to give these people more credibility than they deserve. They don't deserve any. If there is a coherent conspiracy theory to be discovered, Oliver, Hill, Arnold or Hoffmann won't move anyone closer to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, I have had way too much time to spend on this forum in the last 3 months. Until yesterday I have not seen a single claim the LHO did not own a rifle. Until today I have not seen a single claim that the Oswalds never lived on Neely.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

Then you have been spared the tar pit of the Harvey and Lee science fiction series.  Thank your lucky stars.

Regards 

--Paul 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion here, Ray.

Why did these people say what they did? To garner attention? To give their otherwise unnoteworthy lives a veneer of significance? I don't know. People do things like this all of the time, don't they? I'm sure that certain high-profile conspiracy theorists behave in a similar way. Certainly when something big happens, we see these people crawl out of the woodwork. Their motivation isn't important, however. What's important is that their claims can be fairly easily unpicked.

Beverley Oliver claimed she was The Babushka Lady. Clearly she was not. Look at the photographs. Also, she claimed that she filmed the assassination with a camera that didn't exist at that time. Her film has never materialised. Complete nonsense that she elaborated on with events she supposedly witnessed before the assassination.

Jean Hill didn't see a Grassy Knoll shooter in 1963. Later she did. Later she said she came up with the term 'Grassy Knoll'! She claimed attempts were made on her life, but apparently those same people that murdered JFK in broad daylight couldn't come up with a means of killing Hill, and evidently gave up after a few tries. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Listen to her interview on Black Op Radio. Anyone who believes she is credible based on that is, for want of a better word, stupid.

Gordon Arnold. I'm not sure what the politically correct word was for his condition but I'd describe him as a retard. He stopped at Dealey Plaza on a whim, to film a 'parade' (his words). He had no idea what that parade was about until he saw the President come around the corner. He decided to tell his story over a decade later when - I think - the HSCA proceedings were in the news. His experience is not supported by any evidence. He is not in any photo. His statement on that appalling documentary series The Men Who Killed Kennedy says it all: "There is no doubt in my mind I was there". And I'm sure there wasn't. 

Ed Hoffmann. A deaf mute who, according to his own family, was a fantasist and completely unreliable. It seems to me that his account has been lifted out of a James Bond film. Again, I don't think there's any evidence that he was really there (correct me if I'm wrong). Again, his story changed over the years and only first came to light several years after the assassination.

This isn't about summary dismissal of anyone's claims that support the conspiracy story. Nothing any of them have said is backed up by other witnesses, photographic or physical evidence. Only Jean Hill was there, and for whatever reason decided over the years to embellish her story. Mary Moorman, standing next to Hill at the time, can't corroborate any of her claims.

It's a no-brainer. Though of course, many conspiracy theorists like to give these people more credibility than they deserve. They don't deserve any. If there is a coherent conspiracy theory to be discovered, Oliver, Hill, Arnold or Hoffmann won't move anyone closer to it.

Lone Nut prayer mill Baker smearing witnesses as usual ... what's up in the Lone Nut T-r-o-l-l  factory? Well paying jobs there, I suppose ... 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Joe:

You are saying that you believe all that stuff about the notebook, about the pictures, about burying the rifle--which Paul uses Ruth Paine to bail him out of--and you discount all the countervailing evidence against it?  Which Paul never mentions.

Are you aware of it?  Have you read Breach of Trust?

Even Wesley Liebeler said:  Why would he destroy the notebook and keep the photos?

James,

Professor Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust (2005) has been one of my favorite books in the JFK literature.

Yet even McKnight failed to prove a CIA-did-it theory. 

Among the brilliant revelations of his book12 years ago, was when he revealed that the Dallas FBI Field Office (Dallas FO) was the principal source of all Warren Commission findings.  (This means that James Hosty was able to step on anything he wanted in the case.  Sadly for him, J. Edgar Hoover refused to go with Hosty's doctrine of a Red Oswald.)

McKnight also revealed the bleeding rift between the Secret Service PRS (Protective Research Section) and the Dallas FO with regard to JFK, which IMHO is one of the keys to solving the JFK assassination.

McKnight provided more specific details of the failures of the FBI than any other writer before him.  The FBI was indeed guilty of a Breach of Trust.

But contrary to Professor McKnight, I say that FBI agent James Hosty was at the center of that breach -- not J. Edgar Hoover.  True, Hoover cleaned up Hosty's mess; but it was Hosty's mess (and the Radical Right folks that Hosty had befriended in Dallas).

The main flaw that I found in McKnight's great work was his underestimation of George DeMohrenschildt in the attempt to assassinate General Walker.  George DM practically confessed in his 1977 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!  McKnight should have at least mentioned this.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alastair,

I've never heard anything about a "big alien".  I've made joking references to the silver balls in the Elsie Dorman film being an alien transporter device and Kennedy is now on the backside of the moon at a giant alien base directing world peace.  Of course I was just goofing there.

But, what about that "big alien"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only Paul Trejo could say something like this:  James Hosty, a street agent, was really the guy behind the FBI cover up.  

Not Shanklin, not Belmont, not Hoover, but Hosty.

Paul, ever hear of the word hierarchy?  

In Paul's world, it was Hosty of course who told Odum to get in contact with the Paines to disguise Oswald's possession of the MInox.

Let us rely on someone who understood the way the FBI worked, since he was there for ten years.  Bill Turner told me that once he read some of the reports in the volumes, he immediately understood what had happened.  He said: see there are three steps in an FBI inquiry: 1.) collection of all viable leads, 2.) the follow through on those leads to their extinction 3.) the collating of all information garnered into a report.( Reclaiming Prakland, p. 243)  He said, it was obvious that step 2 had not been done--there had been no follow through on valuable information about Ruby and Oswald. FBI agents don't operate like that.  Someone up high had to have been interfering with the investigation.  Geez Paul, was Hosty running the investigation of Ruby?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Only Paul Trejo could say something like this:  James Hosty, a street agent, was really the guy behind the FBI cover up.  

Not Shanklin, not Belmont, not Hoover, but Hosty.

Paul, ever hear of the word hierarchy?  

In Paul's world, it was Hosty of course who told Odum to get in contact with the Paines to disguise Oswald's possession of the MInox.

Let us rely on someone who understood the way the FBI worked, since he was there for ten years.  Bill Turner told me that once he read some of the reports in the volumes, he immediately understood what had happened.  He said: see there are three steps in an FBI inquiry: 1.) collection of all viable leads, 2.) the follow through on those leads to their extinction 3.) the collating of all information garnered into a report.( Reclaiming Prakland, p. 243)  He said, it was obvious that step 2 had not been done--there had been no follow through on valuable information about Ruby and Oswald. FBI agents don't operate like that.  Someone up high had to have been interfering with the investigation.  Geez Paul, was Hosty running the investigation of Ruby?  

James,

FBI hierarchy was not the cause of the JFK assassination -- James Hosty was the FBI field agent responsible.

IMHO, James Hosty betrayed the FBI just as he betrayed the USA.

James Hosty admits that his main connections in Dallas were Robert Alan Surrey, General Edwin Walker and "his" Minutemen (see Assignment Oswald, 1996)

The Secret Service PRS had a protocol -- before any President would visit a city, the FBI field office must supply the PRS with a list of people hostile to the President.

James Hosty replied to them in early November 1963, saying, "There is nobody in Dallas hostile to President Kennedy."

The PRS asked the Dallas Field Office again -- "Are you sure?"  The answer came back.  "Yes, we are very sure."

So, the Secret Service proceeded into Dallas with that information.  That's amply testified by many people in the Warren Commission volumes.

IMHO, James Hosty, who was supposed to be tracking General Walker, was instead turned by General Walker and became a tool of the Radical Right.

That's how JFK got killed.  This is amply documented in Jeff Caufield's recent book (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on Paul.

We know about the flash warning and how it was removed. That is in Newman's book. 

As per the rest of your post, you ignore what I said about Bill Turner, and also the whole failure of the FBI to follow up on very good leads about Ruby and his dealings with narcotics, other contraband, call girls, gun running, and links to organized crime. Did Hosty do that?

Geez.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I mean, obviously I'm just goofing about; clearly it's just foilage and the light and the 'quality' of the image... lol. It just amuses me that there is a 'big alien' looking over the events. ;)

:lol: Amazing, I've never seen that before. You may have just kicked off a whole new line of enquiry!

I see Hitler issuing orders to the alien. Crikey.

moorman_mod.jpg

Joking aside, this does demonstrate the results you get if you look at a grainy image for long enough ...

Edited by Paul Baker
Added image
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh come on Paul.

We know about the flash warning and how it was removed. That is in Newman's book. 

As per the rest of your post, you ignore what I said about Bill Turner, and also the whole failure of the FBI to follow up on very good leads about Ruby and his dealings with narcotics, other contraband, call girls, gun running, and links to organized crime. Did Hosty do that?

Geez.

James,

Jack Ruby had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.  Ruby was pressured by the Dallas police to whack LHO (see Kantor, 1978).

Also, Newman (1995) has been obviated by the Lopez Report (2003).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
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...