The "ET" is to the Stone 2021/2022 docs what the 3 tramps were to the Stone 1991 film

[Paul Cummings]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is absolutely, completely wrong. Thanks to the research of Mary La Fontaine, It has been well established for 30 years that the three men were Gus Abrams, Harold Doyle and John Gedney, that they were in fact actual itinerant "tramps" and had nothing to do with the assassination whatsoever.

 

[Paul Brancato]

My two cents - I never found La Fontaine’s evidence convincing. I don’t have an opinion beyond that, but think the subject is a rabbit hole. 

[Paul Cummings]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

My two cents - I never found La Fontaine’s evidence convincing. I don’t have an opinion beyond that, but think the subject is a rabbit hole. 

Hi Paul, I enjoy your comments. The Three Tramps are just another example of duplicity in the JFKA.

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I gleaned this from his old late 1980's-early-1990's print newsletters that I no longer have. His "famous" line he said over and over was "It could very well be that Oswald did it all by himself, but the way the FBI and CIA acted and had numerous things to cover up themselves, it just appeared there was a conspiracy when there wasn't."

I think we can rule out Hoch as a CT.

You are, of course, exaggerating quite a bit. It's true that he once said something like that at the 1993 Chicago Symposium, and published the text in EOC, but you're making it sound like it was a mantra of his. You also didn't answer my main question. You accused him of trying to use NAA to prove Oswald's guilt. Was that also something that you "gleaned" from his newsletters?

I'm not aware of his current thinking (on anything) as I'm not in the loop, but have always thought of him as a critic and a skeptic. He's obviously not a big conspiracy believer, but it may be too simplistic to put him squarely in the LN camp. Didn't you convert to LN-ism yourself for a while?

[Vince Palamara]

On 7/2/2022 at 2:18 AM, Vince Palamara said:

In other words, neither was a deal breaker; just an "aw shucks." In the big picture, no big deal (although I am SURE some lone-nutters will disagree).

Stone even admitted on the audio commentary and (I think) the annotated screenplay for JFK that the 3 tramps...well...turned out to just be 3 tramps and were identified. Like the Lovelady/man in the doorway Altgens photo issue, some researchers (still?) refused to acknowledge the error, but it is what it is.

Likewise, I feel the "ET"/Elmer Todd initial issue regarding CE399 is of the same caliber (no pun intended)- it doesn't put a dent (no pun intended) in the 2 or 4 hour documentaries as a whole; just something to duly note (borrowing a phrase from Humes) as an error. Like the 3 tramps issue, the "ET" issue WAS alive and well right before release of the Stone productions. It was just that new information came to light.

There are still many issues regarding the SBT: chain of possession, condition, trajectory, disbelief of many (including Clint Hill, Paul Landis, the Connallys, Dr. Robert Shaw, etc.) and so forth. In addition, there are many who feel that OF COURSE CE399 would match up to Oswald's rifle---like the rifle itself, the whole goal was to frame Oswald, so it had to match. For one, I subscribe to the Barry Ernest/Flip de Mey school of thought- Oswald's alleged rifle was involved but OSWALD did not fire it, as he was not on the 6th floor at the time. He was in the building, but on a lower floor. I believe he had to have been involved in some capacity, but as a lone wolf shooter acting totally on his own with no conspiracy, I do not believe this [although I once thought that, while there were undoubtably multiple conspiracies to kill Kennedy, Oswald beat them to the punch. This was circa several months in 2007 when I was briefly swayed by the other Vince not named Palamara, DiMaio, Drain, or Salandria: ole Bugliosi. I added that so DVP doesn't reply "oh, Vince, I remember when you" etc.] But I digress.

Also- Dr. Guinn's NAA has been totally debunked as junk science, so much so that even the FBI has dismissed it of any value. There was a time when THIS was always used by lone-nutters (Paul Hoch and Ken Rahn especially) as "proof" of Oswald's guilt. So much for that...and the debunking of Guinn's NAA is of far greater consequence than a set of initials will ever be.

Bump

[Pat Speer]

22 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

You are, of course, exaggerating quite a bit. It's true that he once said something like that at the 1993 Chicago Symposium, and published the text in EOC, but you're making it sound like it was a mantra of his. You also didn't answer my main question. You accused him of trying to use NAA to prove Oswald's guilt. Was that also something that you "gleaned" from his newsletters?

I'm not aware of his current thinking (on anything) as I'm not in the loop, but have always thought of him as a critic and a skeptic. He's obviously not a big conspiracy believer, but it may be too simplistic to put him squarely in the LN camp. Didn't you convert to LN-ism yourself for a while?

I've met Hoch and kinda know him. He has never committed himself one way or the other. He sends out emails to both LNs and CTs. While he dismisses much of what passes for assassination research, and tends to accept LN sources over CT sources, he claims to have no agenda beyond getting at the truth. IOW, he could very well flip back the other way should something emerge that swayed him. 

Now, that said, I suspect there is almost nothing that could sway him. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Lifton]

On 7/5/2022 at 4:13 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

Can you point to anything Paul Hoch has written on the subject? Thank you in advance.
Btw, when did he "come out" as a lone-nutter?

I've known Paul Hoch since about July 1966.  For many years, Hoch has written a newsletter. ("Echoes of conspiracy."  No strict publishing schedule.  Approx once/month.  Sometimes has  useful info).    Paul has filed several FOIA's.  Also, he was the first to obtain the ONI file on LHO).  Hoch has always been a lone nutter, but he hides behind the position that he's simply a neutral researcher, and an agnostic.   In terms of changing his views, that will never happen. Should you go down that path, rest assured it would a waste of your time).  DSL

[Vince Palamara]

21 hours ago, David Lifton said:

I've known Paul Hoch since about July 1966.  For many years, Hoch has written a newsletter. ("Echoes of conspiracy."  No strict publishing schedule.  Approx once/month.  Sometimes has  useful info).    Paul has filed several FOIA's.  Also, he was the first to obtain the ONI file on LHO).  Hoch has always been a lone nutter, but he hides behind the position that he's simply a neutral researcher, and an agnostic.   In terms of changing his views, that will never happen. Should you go down that path, rest assured it would a waste of your time).  DSL

"Hoch has always been a lone nutter"---THAT is what I and several other people I know have always believed.