Anyone still believe in the JFK assasination conspiracy?

[240 is Back]

i didn't say he was full of shit when he introduced himself as Alex Jones!  

i think you called him a crackpot or something.

fact it, he's a fearmonger... but he did accurately predict the financial collapse, at least 18 months before mainstream media touched the story.

[Hugo Chavez]

I didn't say that or didn't mean to imply i wouldn't look at it unless its a smoking gun.  I told you and have demonstrated I will look at and discuss them.  I just start from a different place than you do i guess.  For me the burden is on the accuser.  For you it seems the burden is on the other.

Off the top of my head:

-  I believe the Catholic church is in possession of artifacts, scrolls that would negates the churches power.
-  I believe BUSH knew dam well there wasn't WMD's in Iraq
-  I believe E. T's have visited our planet.

But, I do realize these are beliefs and are not supported by strong facts or evidence at this time.  In other words i understand what these beliefs are.

I think if you want to change the official record you have to.  For example, St. John's story would get shredded in court as 2nd hand hear say. Otherwise all we have speculation.  In discussing it, we can do what ever we want.  I tend, to want more tangible stuff, as the internet can spout lots of inaccurate stuff.

Hunt's confession was recorded.

 

If the American Justice system is your benchmark, then you should know that countless people are convicted all the time without any smoking gun.  On testimony and witness accounts and evidence that is by no means solid.  It's not always a full set of prints found on the murder weapon stuck in the body of the victim that gets a guy put away.  If this were a courtroom, a guy like Hunt's testimony could be heard and considered heavily.  I think your requirements are stricter than our Justice System.

Also, Saint John lost his family over this.  They won't talk with him and they're furious because the confession was for him, not to be released as he says in the confession, "telling you and you alone"  I think he had a lot more to lose than gaining a few bucks for releasing his father's taped confession.  Plus I really don't think it's an absolute loss of credibility if someone want to make some money on something.  We're kind of fucked that way in this society.  If you don't have a lot of money backing you to begin with, it takes time and money to get the information out there.  I've wasted a lot myself.  If I came up with a body of work on the case, I would very much consider putting a book together to recoup some of the time and money that went into it.  Sad if that equates to me losing credibility.

JFK conspiracies have had Hunt in the scopes for a long time.  He was hit with many accusations of some level of involvement and for the whole time he denied all of it.  That makes his confession before he died rather interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt

[OzmO]

i think you called him a crackpot or something.

fact it, he's a fearmonger... but he did accurately predict the financial collapse, at least 18 months before mainstream media touched the story.

A broken clock is right at least twice a day!

[240 is Back]

A broken clock is right at least twice a day!

Even a garbage can gets a steak every now and then.

[OzmO]

Hunt's confession was recorded.

 

If the American Justice system is your benchmark, then you should know that countless people are convicted all the without any smoking gun.  On testimony and witness accounts and evidence that is by no means solid.  It's not always a full set of prints found on the murder weapon stuck in the body of the victim that gets a guy put away.  If this were a courtroom, a guy like Hunt's testimony could be heard and considered heavily.  I think your requirements are stricter than our Justice System.

Also, Saint John lost his family over this.  They won't talk with him and they're furious because the confession was for him, not to be released as he says in the confession, "telling you and you alone"  I think he had a lot more to lose than gaining a few bucks for releasing his father's taped confession.  Plus I really don't think it's an absolute loss of credibility if someone want to make some money on something.  We're kind of fucked that way in this society.  If you don't have a lot of money backing you to begin with, it takes time and money to get the information out there.  I've wasted a lot myself.  If I came up with a body of work on the case, I would very much consider putting a book together to recoup some of the time and money that went into it.  Sad if that equates to me losing credibility.

JFK conspiracies have had Hunt in the scopes for a long time.  He was hit with many accusations of some level of involvement and for the whole time he denied all of it.  That makes his confession before he died rather interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt

I don't think the discussions here as per my "perceived" requirements come close to the standards in a court room.  For one thing, courts afford the participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence.  We don't have that here.  We don't have the same resources or time each side would have.  We don't have the opportunity to personally interview witnesses.  There's no Judge to determine what is admissible or inadmissible evidence and to sustain or overrule objections.  There's no jury, no deliberation, no sequestering etc.   Finally we are not Lawyers or trained investigators.   So for those many reasons there is no way this can be, or that i can be accused of wanting things to be to the standards of the american Justice system.  I simply think, some of the stuff needs to be put in perspective and weighed similar to that of a court room and not on mostly unacknowledged speculation.  For example:  How can plane crash into a building a leave a 16 foot whole in it unless it was a missile?  Which most of the CT stuff is argued like here, plain ignorantly.  

A jury trial can produce many inconsistencies and mistakes.  A jury must have a charge.  What is the charge?  That the Warren commission lied to cover up a conspiracy?  Without the benefit of a court room and it's procedure and resources we can only debate it.  I mention earlier that in order to make real change it will have to happen in court.

Now for the audio:

Is there more to it?  I listened to it twice.  Where does he say LBJ organized this group of poeple to kill President Kennedy.

Here's what i did hear that raises questions in my mind:  

"I had a reputation for honesty"  He works for the CIA and lied to everyone all his life and we are supposed to believe him now and that he's honest?

"You and you alone"  He says this and he's being taped?  

"He had a maniacal urge to be president"  He worked for the United States of America and some one wants to kill the president because they have an  maniacal urge to be president and he was ok with that?

Those three issues right there take away credibility.  

Also his family may not speak him because they may believe this whole thing is load of crap as he might have been exploiting his dying Father.

Now before you assume that I'm being unreasonable and closed minded, look closely at the questions i asked and remember we are discussing/debating this.  Which means just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm being closed minded.

[OzmO]

Even a garbage can gets a steak every now and then.

And even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and again.

[OzmO]

Interesting article and supposed book for sale on Howard Hunt:

http://www.hongpong.com/archives/2007/01/15/e_howard_hunt_88_year_old_watergate_cia_jfk_conspirator_going_tell_his_story_den

Convicted Watergate 'plumber' claims LBJ may have had JFK assassinated - RawStory.com -

Ron Brynaert
Published: Sunday January 14, 2007
 

In a soon-to-be-published book, a former CIA agent, convicted for his role as a "plumber" in the Watergate scandal, claims that former President Lyndon B. Johnson may have played a role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

According to the New York Post's gossip column, Page Six, "E. Howard Hunt – the shadowy former CIA man who organized the Watergate break-in and was once eyed in the assassination of President Kennedy – bizarrely says that Lyndon Johnson could be seen as a prime suspect in the rubout."

"Only the most far-out conspiracy theorists believe in scenarios like Hunt's," the column continues. "But in a new memoir, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond, due out in April, Hunt, 88, writes: 'Having Kennedy liquidated, thus elevating himself to the presidency without having to work for it himself, could have been a very tempting and logical move on Johnson's part.'"

In 2004, the History Channel aired a program called The Guilty Men, which was partially based on a book by Barr McClellan, who alleged that "the law firm he quit a quarter-century ago was involved in convoluted plots that link Johnson to at least 11 deaths, including President Kennedy's." After much criticism, the cable channel apologized to its viewers, then aired a follow-up special which included a panel of three historians who "debunked" the claim.

"We have a great responsibility and this time we did not live up to it," History Channel executive vice president Dan Davids said. "We hold ourselves accountable. As we have said before, nothing is more important to us than the accuracy of our programming and the integrity of our network."

"LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place," Hunt writes, according to the tabloid. "He further tried unsuccessfully to engineer the passengers of each vehicle, trying to get his good buddy, Gov. [John] Connolly, to ride with him instead of in JFK's car – where...he would have been out of danger."

A blurb from Hunt's publisher states that in American Spy, "a legendary CIA operative and central figure in the Watergate scandal at last tells his story."

"Now in his late eighties, Hunt looks back over his storied career, revealing what really happened and debunking the many rumors that have swirled around him," the blurb continues. "Writing with his characteristic salty wit, he brings to life his exploits in the CIA, offering surprising revelations about the agency’s Latin American operations–and its masterly manipulation of politics and the media in the U.S."

Adding, "He details the 'black bag jobs' of the White House plumbers, explains why he agreed to participate in the Watergate burglary–even though he thought it was a bad idea–and sheds new light on the aftermath of the break-in. He sets the record straight on rumors about his first wife’s death and accusations that have linked him to the JFK assassination and the George Wallace shooting. And finally, he offers an insider’s advice on how the CIA must now reshape itself to regain its edge and help win the war on terrorism."

Excerpts from Page Six column:

#

Hunt says Johnson also had easy access to CIA man William Harvey, who'd been demoted when he tried to have Fidel Castro poisoned in defiance of orders to drop covert operations against Cuba. Harvey was "a ruthless man who was not satisfied with his position in the CIA and its government salary," Hunt writes.

"He definitely had dreams of becoming [CIA director] and LBJ could do that for him if he were president . . . [LBJ] would have used Harvey because he was available and corrupt." Hunt denies any hand in the assassination, insisting he wasn't one of three mysterious hobos who were photographed at the scene.


I don't know Hugo, this Howard Hunt seems like he's full of it trying to make a buck.  And he never really comes out and says:  LBJ did it!

[240 is Back]

we should just PM The Luke and ask him to debunk the jfk conspiracy.

[Hugo Chavez]

I don't think the discussions here as per my "perceived" requirements come close to the standards in a court room.  For one thing, courts afford the participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence.  We don't have that here.  We don't have the same resources or time each side would have.  We don't have the opportunity to personally interview witnesses.  There's no Judge to determine what is admissible or inadmissible evidence and to sustain or overrule objections.  There's no jury, no deliberation, no sequestering etc.   Finally we are not Lawyers or trained investigators.   So for those many reasons there is no way this can be, or that i can be accused of wanting things to be to the standards of the american Justice system.  I simply think, some of the stuff needs to be put in perspective and weighed similar to that of a court room and not on mostly unacknowledged speculation.  For example:  How can plane crash into a building a leave a 16 foot whole in it unless it was a missile?  Which most of the CT stuff is argued like here, plain ignorantly.  

A jury trial can produce many inconsistencies and mistakes.  A jury must have a charge.  What is the charge?  That the Warren commission lied to cover up a conspiracy?  Without the benefit of a court room and it's procedure and resources we can only debate it.  I mention earlier that in order to make real change it will have to happen in court.

Now for the audio:

Is there more to it?  I listened to it twice.  Where does he say LBJ organized this group of poeple to kill President Kennedy.

Here's what i did hear that raises questions in my mind:  

"I had a reputation for honesty"  He works for the CIA and lied to everyone all his life and we are supposed to believe him now and that he's honest?

"You and you alone"  He says this and he's being taped?  

"He had a maniacal urge to be president"  He worked for the United States of America and some one wants to kill the president because they have an  maniacal urge to be president and he was ok with that?

Those three issues right there take away credibility.  

Also his family may not speak him because they may believe this whole thing is load of crap as he might have been exploiting his dying Father.

Now before you assume that I'm being unreasonable and closed minded, look closely at the questions i asked and remember we are discussing/debating this.  Which means just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm being closed minded.

whoa, did you just actually say in regards to JFK CT that "participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence.  We don't have that here."

I didn't say it should go down like American Justice, I asked if you thought that should be the goal, level wise, attempted...  I didn't expect for the actuality of that.  We don't have the benefit of that when arguing our points on a message board of what we believe.  The point was not to say or ask you if this should go down like a real trial.  I'm just saying I think your standards are higher for proof of X than goes down in a lot of cases that convict people and I think that's true.

He sent his son the tape.  anyway, it's my understanding that his families opinion was that he should not release the tape and that it was only meant for him.  He crossed them and they won't talk to him.  That's what he said anyway.

He refers to it as the big event in the tape.  Keep in mind that he had a close working relationship with the people he's talking about and a known and proven underhanded relationship at that.

No, he could be lying now too.  He had history of denial his whole life and played the part aside from threatening to talk when he was locked up for a while and Nixon caughed up $1 Million and a get out of jail card.  So really doing a 180 on his deathbed is very huge for those who have followed the whole thing. 

dude, you are being unreasonable.  Nobody has any cred for you.  There's other expert testimony that suggest conspiracy but I absolutely know you'll just look in the index of your book for the answer.

[OzmO]

Woah.

We're supposed to take you seriously when you believe in little green men?

I suppose you have just invalidated every point you've ever made here by the admission you believe in this guy



This is the same way you invalidate everything alex jones says because some of it is wrong.

Just for you 240  

Story broke today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/20/ufo.conference/index.html

Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe

  
(CNN) -- Earth Day may fall later this week, but as far as former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell and other UFO enthusiasts are concerned, the real story is happening elsewhere.


Former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell, shown in 1998, says "there really is no doubt we are being visited."

Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, asserted Monday that extraterrestrial life exists, and that the truth is being concealed by the U.S. and other governments.

He delivered his remarks during an appearance at the National Press Club following the conclusion of the fifth annual X-Conference, a meeting of UFO activists and researchers studying the possibility of alien life forms.

Mankind has long wondered if we're "alone in the universe. [But] only in our period do we really have evidence. No, we're not alone," Mitchell said.

"Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there."

Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico, which some UFO believers maintain was the site of a UFO crash in 1947. He said residents of his hometown "had been hushed and told not to talk about their experience by military authorities." They had been warned of "dire consequences" if they did so.

Don't Miss
Dog walker 'met man from another planet'
Hundreds of 'alien' aircraft sightings
But, he claimed, they "didn't want to go to the grave with their story. They wanted to tell somebody reliable. And being a local boy and having been to the moon, they considered me reliable enough to whisper in my ear their particular story."

Roughly 10 years ago, Mitchell claimed, he was finally given an appointment at Pentagon to discuss what he had been told.

An unnamed admiral working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff promised to uncover the truth behind the Roswell story, Mitchell said. The stories of a UFO crash "were confirmed," but the admiral was then denied access when he "tried to get into the inner workings of that process."

The same admiral, Mitchell claimed, now denies the story.

"I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books, read the lore, start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited," he said.

"The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."

A NASA spokesman denied any cover-up.

"NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else -- period," Michael Cabbage said Monday.

Debates have continued about what happened at Roswell. The U.S. Air Force said in 1994 that wreckage recovered there in 1947 was most likely from a balloon-launched classified government project.

Stephen Bassett, head of the Paradigm Research Group (PRG), which hosted the X-Conference, said that the truth about extraterrestrial life is being suppressed because it is politically explosive.

"There is a third rail [in American politics], and that is the UFO question. It is many magnitudes more radioactive than Social Security ever dreamed to be," Bassett said.




lolol.  good timing eh?

[OzmO]

we should just PM The Luke and ask him to debunk the jfk conspiracy.

No he'll say Bigfoot did it.

[240 is Back]

Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe

He delivered his remarks during an appearance at the National Press Club following the conclusion of the fifth annual X-Conference, a meeting of UFO activists and researchers studying the possibility of alien life forms.

Ah, he attended a CT conference and told them what they wanted to hear.  I wonder what he was paid for this appearance.  Times are tough, it seems like this guy is just trying to pay the mortgage. 






 

[OzmO]

Ah, he attended a CT conference and told them what they wanted to hear.  I wonder what he was paid for this appearance.  Times are tough, it seems like this guy is just trying to pay the mortgage. 






 

Even for former astronauts  lol

[240 is Back]

dude, you are being unreasonable.  Nobody has any cred for you.  There's other expert testimony that suggest conspiracy but I absolutely know you'll just look in the index of your book for the answer.

Luke completely debunked a theory for him with a single post, and he cited it, he was so happy with it.

However, a deathbed recorded confession of an agent's involvement in something like JFK - something he had long been suspected of and something he had nothing to gain by sharing - nah, that's just CT nonsense

[240 is Back]

Even for former astronauts  lol

maybe he saw a hologram.

Hell, you had an agent's recorded confession about JFK and you discounted that.

We're supposed to believe some astronaut being paid to speak to a group of CTers?

 

[OzmO]

 

dude, you are being unreasonable.  Nobody has any cred for you.  There's other expert testimony that suggest conspiracy but I absolutely know you'll just look in the index of your book for the answer.

How am i being unreasonable?  I told you what i thought and brought up my points.

Are you into just agreeable debates?  does everyone have to agree with you to be reasonable?

And who is Nobody  that has any cred for me here? 

And so what if i do look in the index for an answer?  It's a source isn't it?  Written by a credible author.  Or is just this guys taped confession for his son and his son only credible?

Honestly, Hugo, I don't think you really want to debate this because all it seems you have been doing today is mostly attacking my position on it instead of attacking my arguments.

[OzmO]

maybe he saw a hologram.

Hell, you had an agent's recorded confession about JFK and you discounted that.

We're supposed to believe some astronaut being paid to speak to a group of CTers?

 

Your are the low res video and hologram expert you should know.

[Hugo Chavez]

How am i being unreasonable?  I told you what i thought and brought up my points.

Are you into just agreeable debates?  does everyone have to agree with you to be reasonable?

And who is Nobody  that has any cred for me here? 

And so what if i do look in the index for an answer?  It's a source isn't it?  Written by a credible author.  Or is just this guys taped confession for his son and his son only credible?

Honestly, Hugo, I don't think you really want to debate this because all it seems you have been doing today is mostly attacking my position on it.

no, not just with this, like I said you shoot for the first easiest debunking or slightest thing you can expose for having a credibility crack and you lock onto that.  It's like when BB would read an article and find the one line that makes his point ignoring the bulk of the content in the article.

I gotta ask again, did you actually say in regards to JFK CT that "participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence.  We don't have that here."  Do you really believe there has not been experts and scrutinized evidence?

[OzmO]

no, not just with this, like I said you shoot for the first easiest debunking or slightest thing you can expose for having a credibility crack and you lock onto that.  It's like when BB would read an article and find the one line that makes his point ignoring the bulk of the content in the article.

I gotta ask again, did you actually say in regards to JFK CT that "participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence.  We don't have that here."  Do you really believe there has not been experts and scrutinized evidence?

Not live in a court room.  That's what i was meaning as that's what would take place in a trial giving both sides the opportunity to directly cross examine.

Look, considering who this is and what he said, its shaky.  Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?

It's not enough for me, sorry.  That doesn't mean i don't want to see more.  It's that its very questionable, indirect and full of possible holes.  And on top of that, he was in the book writing business already and his son was broke.

Also, don't compare me to BB.  Because if it was BB, he'd had given you two 30 eye rolls and never would have delved this far into a discussion on it.  And you know that.

[240 is Back]

Or is just this guys taped confession for his son and his son only credible?

LMAO...

A guy who everything thinks was in on the JFK shooting...

Confesses on his deathbed...
On tape...
And give details of who else was involved...

And Ozmo doesn't consider it credible.



I mean honestly, for a JFK enthusiast like you Oz... hunt's confession should be a huge thing.  But since you read 80 pages about sharpshooting and you're convinced... you really believe hunt's words are meaningless.

You have the main suspect confessing on tape with zero to gain except to destory his name for infamy.  And it's not credible?  LMAO...

[OzmO]

LMAO...

A guy who everything thinks was in on the JFK shooting...

Confesses on his deathbed...
On tape...
And give details of who else was involved...

And Ozmo doesn't consider it credible.



I mean honestly, for a JFK enthusiast like you Oz... hunt's confession should be a huge thing.  But since you read 80 pages about sharpshooting and you're convinced... you really believe hunt's words are meaningless.

You have the main suspect confessing on tape with zero to gain except to destory his name for infamy.  And it's not credible?  LMAO...

There you go taking stuff out of context and embellishing which is pretty much what do all the time.  It seems to be the only way you can continue to argue your lame brain conclusions.  Give me a holo high five on that one!

Did you really say the chinese would defeat the America because they know kung fu? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?

Oh good god, tell me where I came even close to suggesting that

[OzmO]

Oh good god, tell me where I came even close to suggesting that

Hugo, again, just because i don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable.  I'm just arguing my position and take on the testimony presented.

And just because i ask a question like:  "Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?" Doesn't mean I saying you are saying that.  If i was saying you said that I'd say you did.  What I'm trying to ask by asking that is, "Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?" to see the weight in which you put this tape towards your conclusions.

Geez.

[240 is Back]

Did you really say the chinese would defeat the America because they know kung fu? 

that was someone else's quote.

witty and inaccurate, but not mine.

[OzmO]

Hugo,

Can we dispense with the criticizing of me arguing my position now and understand that's what I'm going to do until i see enough facts and evidence to change my mind.  It may never happen.  I certainly don't expect you to change your position.  You may, I may.   but i think this is real good stuff aside from this other crap.

I feel like we are in court and you are attacking me for being a defense lawyer.  I mean come on dude. Can we stick to the case.