JFK Assassination Conspiracy

[Misha]

Thanks for your list, ProfWag. I've read excerpts of the Warren Commission, but not all its volumes. Not easy to get. Buglosi and Posner, frankly, I won't waste my time. Horne, Marrs, and Jim Fetzer take their arguments apart in full. Yes, I have read Marrs' book and have spoken with Jim at length on the assassination. Jim is a real pro. Douglass, Talbot, Livingston, Fetzer, Vinson, Prouty and others I can't think of for the moment. But the creme de creme is no doubt Horne's book. He nails it. ProWag, I would love to go down to Suitland and see the archives. Perhaps one day you and I can get together and go down and view them. Whad'ya say?

I'm pleased you like the Dulles statement. Thanks.

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

Hi ProfWag,

Keep in mind that Buglosi's argument is scrutinized point for point by Jim Fetzer, Jim Marrs and Doug Horne. So in essence, I am getting the details of what Buglosi and Posner are putting out. In fact, these two are what the major media refers too incessantly. Also, besides Buglosi's book I have also spoken with Jim Marrs on Buglosi. Furthermore, I caught some of what Buglosi has said on You-Tube too. Now you may think I am not being fair with Buglosi. However, when one has studied this subject in depth one gets a better sense of separating the signal from the noise without continuing beating one's head against the wall. Buglosi and Posner have shown to be noise.

Moreover, just because Buglosi's book is the best on the market does not mean it is correct. No, I am not interested in "conspiracy" as you might understand it. Your idea of conspiracy may be very different in the way I approach conspiracies. I am interested in pattern recognition weighed against cognitive associations which gives us a true historical perspective against the distortions. ProWag, sometimes one has to make a choice. Either cut the fat out or continue chewing indefinitely.

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

Fair enough, ProfWag. All these points and the forensics are discussed in Horne's books. Also, Jim Douglass and Talbot show us why Kennedy was shot.

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

No, Douglass and Talbot do an excellent job showing why Kennedy was shot. In short, JFK was a threat to the National Security apparatus in every sense. His assassination was one that was state sponsored at the highest levels. Now take Douglass' and Talbot's "interpretation" and Horne's forensic work and you get the big picture. Again, we finally have some of the answers that have been alluding us, ProfWag. That means the definitive expose and culmination of all the researchers' work involved in this subject - "Inside the ARRB."

By the way, I saw this: http://lewrockwell.com/miller/miller40.1.html

Addendum from the article's link above:

Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the first Kennedy assassination. Warren Commission loyalists and the national TV and print media will be out in force trumpeting the imperial state’s Oswald-did-it-alone narrative. Loyalists take comfort in two books written by attorneys defending the Commission’s findings, Case Closed by Gerald Posner (1993) and the more recent 2,600-page (with its CD) Reclaiming History (2007) by Vincent Bugliosi. These lawyers cite evidence that supports their client’s case and discount or ignore culpatory evidence of a conspiracy. Posner and especially prosecutor Bugliosi employ ad hominem attacks to dismiss assassination researchers who do not adhere to the government line, labeling them "conspiracy theorists," and worse, "conspiracy buffs." Bugliosi writes, "Most of them are as kooky as a $3 bill." Researcher Mark Lane is "unprincipled" and a "fraud." The New York Times approves and gives Reclaiming History an enthusiastic review, agreeing that "these people should be ridiculed, even shunned [italics in original]."

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

No, ProfWag. I have been completely open for 20 plus years on this. Perhaps you need to be more open? I even spoke with Jim Marrs for about an hour on Posner and Buglosi. Jim obviously finds their arguments specious and lacks the total context of what went on before, during and after the assassination. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

HSCA Final Assassinations Report:

Chapter 1, Item C:

"The committee believes on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

Now if you want to learn more on what "evidence" was not put forth by HSCA, please read Doug Horne's (military analyst for the 'Assassinations Records Review Board') book 'Inside The ARRB.

Moreover, the HSCA determined through the Dictabelt acoustical evidence that AT LEAST ONE SHOT WAS FIRED FROM THE FRONT OF THE JFK MOTORCADE. However, the HSCA also determined that the shot did not hit the president. This is the basis for their argument that JFK's assassination "was probably" the result of a "conspiracy."

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

Hi ProfWag,

I submit that the House Select Committee on Assassinations engaged its final report as a "limited hangout" and covered up, obscured, and out right hid from the American people the true nature of the assassination. In effect, what was not reported to the American people and was classified until the year 2029 came out with the collation of papers from the government, intelligence, military, FBI, Secret Service (Destroyed Kennedy's SS detail for the months leading up to the assassination) and others as to the contextual nature of the assassination. These very pertinent items which have been kept secret were discovered by the ARRB. This is why the HSCA was compelled, at the very least, to admit that the assassination of JFK was "probably" the result of a conspiracy. Now either the assassination was a conspiracy or not. There can be no grey area here. So when the HSCA ruled "probably" it can only mean that they withheld testimonies and evidence which the American public is unaware. But wait, you and the folks in this forum can learn some of those "items" withheld.

Again, please read Douglas P. Horne's books (5 Volumes, 1808 pages) - "Inside the ARRB."

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

To understand Oswald one must not look ONLY at Oswald. Oswald can only be understood in the total context and dynamics within the assassination. As for relevant points in Horne's book there are many. More importantly, I truly believe that to pick out some of Horne's salient points would only get this forum bogged down in a quagmire of other researchers' memes and chronological difficulties with the evolution of research on this subject. You and the folks on this forum can cut to the chase and see what the ARRB has found. ProfWag, I promise it will be the best 100 dollars you will spend on the assassination of JFK.

No, I am not Doug Horne. I'm just a student of history who would like you guys to discover what I have found. Get the books, guys. I promise Doug Horne will not waste your time.