Anyone still believe in the JFK assasination conspiracy?

[OzmO]

that was someone else's quote.

witty and inaccurate, but not mine.

Good.  You had me worried there.

Was starting to fear the chinese BIG time.   

j/k   

[OzmO]

And Hugo,

I have conceded a few things per your arguments:

Oswald shooting ability
Lighting on the space walk.

So its not like its all me discounting everything, if that's what you are suggesting.

[Hugo Chavez]

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.

I was simply saying I think you have a higher standard for judgement than what ends up putting many behind bars in our justice system.  That was my only point with that and I think it's a valid point to make.

[OzmO]

I was simply saying I think you have a higher standard for judgement than what ends up putting many behind bars in our justice system.  That was my only point and I think it's a valid point to make.

Well maybe so. 

Or maybe I'm cross-examining to robustly.    I would expect no less from you. 

That being said, I would think a lawyer would bring up those points about his confession. If i was playing devil advocate would i be wrong to assume that?

There's more to this confession anyway in regards to arguments against its credibility that i want to see and run by you.  But its going to take a bit of research.  Perhaps tomorrow. gn.

[OzmO]

Here's a transcript of the tape:

Hunt: "I heard from Frank that LBJ had designated Cord Meyer Jr. to undertake a larger organization while keeping it totally secret. Cord Meyer himself was a rather favorite member of the Eastern aristocracy. He was a graduate of Yale University and had joined the Marine Corps during the war and lost an eye in the Pacific fighting.
I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist (unintelligible) like himself (unintelligible) in a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cords wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers; quite the contrary.
As for Dave Philips, I knew him pretty well at one time. He worked for me during the Guatemala project. He made himself useful to the agency in Santiago, Chile where he was an American businessman. In any case, his actions, whatever they were, came to the attention of the Santiago station chief and when his resume became known to people in the Western Hemisphere division he was brought in to work on Guatemalan operations.
Sturgis and Morales and people of that ilk, stayed in apartment houses during preparations for the big event. Their addresses were very subject to change so that where a fellow like Morales had been one day, you'd not necessarily associated with that address the following day. In short it was a very mobile experience.
Let me point out at this point, that if I wanted to fictionalize of when I'm in Miami and elsewhere during the run up for the big event, I would have done so. But I don't want any unreality to tinge this particular story or the information I should say. I was a benchwarmer on it and I had a reputation for honesty. I think it's essential to refocus on what this information, that I've been providing you and you alone by the way, consists of.
What is important in the story is that we backtrack the chain of command up through Cord Meyer and laying the doings at the doorstep of LBJ. He in my opinion, had an almost maniacal urge to become President. He regarded JFK, as he was in fact, an obstacle to achieving that. He could have waited for JFK to finish out his term and then undoubtedly a second term. So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch."

Where in this transcript does anybody say anything about the JFK murder?

[Hugo Chavez]

First of all, what does it matter, anything he says cannot be taken into account.  He's not credible right, so what's the point arguing anything past that on anything he said.  No thanks...

Here's a transcript of the tape:

Hunt: "I heard from Frank that LBJ had designated Cord Meyer Jr. to undertake a larger organization while keeping it totally secret. Cord Meyer himself was a rather favorite member of the Eastern aristocracy. He was a graduate of Yale University and had joined the Marine Corps during the war and lost an eye in the Pacific fighting.
I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist (unintelligible) like himself (unintelligible) in a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cords wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers; quite the contrary.
As for Dave Philips, I knew him pretty well at one time. He worked for me during the Guatemala project. He made himself useful to the agency in Santiago, Chile where he was an American businessman. In any case, his actions, whatever they were, came to the attention of the Santiago station chief and when his resume became known to people in the Western Hemisphere division he was brought in to work on Guatemalan operations.
Sturgis and Morales and people of that ilk, stayed in apartment houses during preparations for the big event. Their addresses were very subject to change so that where a fellow like Morales had been one day, you'd not necessarily associated with that address the following day. In short it was a very mobile experience.
Let me point out at this point, that if I wanted to fictionalize of when I'm in Miami and elsewhere during the run up for the big event, I would have done so. But I don't want any unreality to tinge this particular story or the information I should say. I was a benchwarmer on it and I had a reputation for honesty. I think it's essential to refocus on what this information, that I've been providing you and you alone by the way, consists of.
What is important in the story is that we backtrack the chain of command up through Cord Meyer and laying the doings at the doorstep of LBJ. He in my opinion, had an almost maniacal urge to become President. He regarded JFK, as he was in fact, an obstacle to achieving that. He could have waited for JFK to finish out his term and then undoubtedly a second term. So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch."

Where in this transcript does anybody say anything about the JFK murder?

[OzmO]

First of all, what does it matter, anything he says cannot be taken into account.  He's not credible right, so what's the point arguing anything past that on anything he said.  No thanks...

Are you this thin skinned?  I said the credibility of the tape is in question.  I listed the reasons.  I didn't make up the reasons.  I didn't make up Saint Johns drug addiction.  I didn't make up E. Howard Hunt's past.  I bet you'd have the audacity to question  the credibility of the Warren commission yet have no problem validating the credibility of a person who lied for a living all his life, published book about it and then sends his former broke tweak son a vague tape that never directly says how JFK was murdered.

So excuse the FUCK out of me for not jumping on the band wagon here.


Where in the transcript is the BIG EVENT defined?

Also, this is only part of the whole tape.  Where is the rest of it?

 

[OzmO]

I bet you think the reason this hasn't ever been taken seriously by the media is because its part of the whole great cover up, yet is hasn't ever occurred to you that this tape has no meat, nothing tangible.  Nothing that says:  ________ murdered JFK.  Here's what happened.  Here's what i know.  Here's how i was involved.

THAT is a confession that has something in it.

[Hugo Chavez]

Are you this thin skinned?  I said the credibility of the tape is in question.  I listed the reasons.  I didn't make up the reasons.  I didn't make up Saint Johns drug addiction.  I didn't make up E. Howard Hunt's past.  I bet you'd have the audacity to question  the credibility of the Warren commission yet have no problem validating the credibility of a person who lied for a living all his life, published book about it and then sends his former broke tweak son a vague tape that never directly says how JFK was murdered.

So excuse the FUCK out of me for not jumping on the band wagon here.


Where in the transcript is the BIG EVENT defined?

Also, this is only part of the whole tape.  Where is the rest of it?

 

The big event is actually a monday morning get together at Dunkin Donuts between CIA buddies. The rest of the tape shows this which is why his drug attled greedy sack of shit son held it back.  You're excused...

[OzmO]

The big event is actually a monday morning get together at Dunkin Donuts between CIA buddies. The rest of the tape shows this which is why his drug attled greedy sack of shit son held it back.  You're excused...

Oh yeah, we HAVE to assume the big event IS the JFK assassination.

On top of all of that, we have this at the very end in essence justifying LBJ as a suspect: 

"So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch."

He never says LBJ ordered the murder of JFK

[OzmO]

Fact of the matter is, had E. Howard Hunt directly said:  LBJ ordered the murder of JFK.  Here's why i know, here's what i know and here's how i was invovled.  It would shaken the US and created a media storm.  That's what a direct death bed confession would have produce.

That's why the significance of this PARTIAL taped confession isn't taken too seriously. 

[regmac]

I ONLY think about it during football season...when I am in Dallas for a game. 

[OzmO]

I ONLY think about it during football season...when I am in Dallas for a game. 

Yet you thought about it enough to post here now........   hmmmmmmm

[OzmO]

Hugo,

You don't think a lawyer in a trial would shred this?   Com on dude.

[Hugo Chavez]

Hugo,

You don't think a lawyer in a trial would shred this?   Com on dude.

[OzmO]

Grow up. 

Honestly, i didn't expect you to fall apart this easy.  If your willingness to discuss and debate the JFK assassination hinges on me accepting your arguments then it only shows how weak your position is.

It's all good though. 

Thanks for the vid.

[Hugo Chavez]

Grow up. 

Honestly, i didn't expect you to fall apart this easy.  If your willingness to discuss and debate the JFK assassination hinges on me accepting your arguments then it only shows how weak your position is.

It's all good though. 

Thanks for the vid.

I fell apart?  I just noted that I wasn't interested in going further in regards to someone you feel has no cred and you fell apart. What would be the point?

[OzmO]

I fell apart?  I just noted that I wasn't interested going further in regards to someone you feel has no cred and you fell apart. What would be the point?

How did i fall apart?

You are the one acting a child because I disagree with you.  You don't even have the substance to attempt to counter why i think this partial taped vague (I can't even call it a confession) audio clip isn't very credible.  Like i said a lawyer would shred this in anywhere.  That's why this tape hasn't had any real impact in the JFK assassination issue.  So here we are, you have the opportunity to do so, to argue its impact and you punk out.  Excuse me for  not ignoring my sensibilities.  In fact excuse the rest of the world while you are at it.

Like i said its ok, it's cool.  Its duly noted you lack what it takes to go further and would rather hide your head in the sand believing a conspiracy not based on solid facts and evidence.  I do the same with little green men, Evil popes, and GWB's WMD's. 

[Hugo Chavez]

How did i fall apart?

You are the one acting a child because I disagree with you.  You don't even have the substance to attempt to counter why i think this partial taped vague (I can't even call it a confession) audio clip isn't very credible.  Like i said a lawyer would shred this in anywhere.  That's why this tape hasn't had any real impact in the JFK assassination issue.  So here we are, you have the opportunity to do so, to argue its impact and you punk out.  Excuse me for  not ignoring my sensibilities.  In fact excuse the rest of the world while you are at it.

Like i said its ok, it's cool.  Its duly noted you lack what it takes to go further and would rather hide your head in the sand believing a conspiracy not based on solid facts and evidence.  I do the same with little green men, Evil popes, and GWB's WMD's. 

yea, you fell apart.  One single line saying I don't see the point and boom, you definitely came unglued over it and by this post you still are lol.  especially considering you're usually one of the calmest here leaving others to do the melting.  I just lol'd and figured you needed to rub one out or something   Dude, you act like it's a major attack, I honestly don't fathom there is a point to debating with a person over accounts by a person who has no credibility for that person.  I mean dude, is there any point to that?  I would rather just move on and post something else you might find more interesting to shoot down.  I don't even get why you would want to continue talking about a person you feel has no credibility?  Move on, there's no need to melt over it.

[OzmO]

yea, you fell apart.  One single line saying I don't see the point and boom, you definitely came unglued over it and by this post you still are lol.  especially considering you're usually one of the calmest here leaving others to do the melting.  I just lol'd and figured you needed to rub one out or something   Dude, you act like it's a major attack, I honestly don't fathom there is a point to debating with a person over accounts by a person who has no credibility for that person.  I mean dude, is there any point to that?  I would rather just move on and post something else you might find more interesting to shoot down.  I don't even get why you would want to continue talking about a person you feel has no credibility?  Move on, there's no need to melt over it.

If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so.  No need to play games by copping out.

[Hugo Chavez]

If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so.  No need to play games by copping out.

you should try reading my posts.  Why on earth do you want debate over a person that you straight up feel doesn't have any credibility?  What in the wild world of sports would be the point?  If you feel he has no credibility and you made that argument clear, there is only one possible outcome to the argument.  What is the logic for either you or me to continue down that road with that assumtion of the person made? Is there any possible return?  I can't see one! Anything I spend time with bringing to the argument around Hunt in the end still has a "Not Credible" label.  I'm much more interested in moving on to something new that is hopefully harder to put a "do not listen to" sticker on. why is that wrong of me to say?  seems logical to me.

[OzmO]

you should try reading my posts.  Why on earth do you want debate over a person that you straight up feel doesn't have any credibility?  What in the wild world of sports would be the point?  If you feel he has no credibility and you made that argument clear, there is only one possible outcome to the argument.  What is the logic for either you or me to continue down that road with that assumtion of the person made? Is there any possible return?  I can't see one! Anything I spend time with bringing to the argument around Hunt in the end still has a "Not Credible" label.  I'm much more interested in moving on to something new that is hopefully harder to put a "do not listen to" sticker on. why is that wrong of me to say?  seems logical to me.

It would be one thing for me to put a "not credible" label and not present my reasons for it.  Much of what many complain BB does.

However, I've been very detailed about my reasons.  Far more than just picking out 1 sentence and then dismissing it all together.  I brought upat least a half dozen points explaining why.  Yet, your only retort seems to be:

"Why should debate it if you feel this tape has no credibility?"

That Hugo, is a COP OUT.

Straight up.

[OzmO]

Another thing too that makes your latest action look like a cop out.

You made your case about LHO shooting ability.  You made good points based on personal experience.  I heeded those points and agreed with you.  If i was being bull headed about it, I'd have dismissed them.

You made a case about light diffusing in the alleged water on the space walk.  Instead of saying You don't know crap.  I said ok fair enough.  Trusting your personal opinion based on some level of practical knowledge you insinuated you have.

So again i say:

If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so.  ....and we'll move on.

[Hugo Chavez]

It would be one thing for me to put a "not credible" label and not present my reasons for it.  Much of what many complain BB does.

However, I've been very detailed about my reasons.  Far more than just picking out 1 sentence and then dismissing it all together.  I brought upat least a half dozen points explaining why.  Yet, your only retort seems to be:

"Why should debate it if you feel this tape has no credibility?"

That Hugo, is a COP OUT.

Straight up.

you're still melting.  How's it a cop out?.  You named your reasons why he has no credibility.  Really the only next possible step I have is effectively rebutting your reasons for him having no credibility so that there is a point to further discussion in regards to Hunt.  I can't do that.  I don't have anything that cancels your reasons for seeing him as not credible.  Now answer me, what is the upside of debating further on Hunt if I cannot shoot down your reasons for him having no credibility?  In the end, anything brought under the umbrella of Hunt still lands a zero.  Pissing in the wind...  What's the upside for me?  What's the point for you?  Answer those things because I can't.  I would much rather move on in an attempt to provide something more solid.  How's this my bust?

[Hugo Chavez]

If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so.  ....and we'll move on.

What the fuck do you think I've been saying   Clearly I don't have what you would need to consider Hunt credible, duh...  If Hunt's not credible for you and his son even worse, I fail to see why you want to go further and I really can't fathom the point for me?  It's not a cop out, it's logical.