Touring the Tippit Scene

[Walt Cakebread]

And you are suggesting that Hoover wasn't involved in the assassination of the President of the United States because he could have coerced him into doing whatever he wanted.

Both suggestions are pure speculation for which a shred of evidence exists. Neither Walt, nor you, knows what Hoover had on Kennedy, if he had anything at all, and if it would have been enough to remove his from the Presidency.

This entire argument is a complete waste of time.

Mr "Smith" wrote...."And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad."

This statement reveals that the author is a simpleton......   It's a conflicting dichotomy.....and it reveals the shallow "reasoning" that Mr "Smith" routinely displays.  On one hand Smith claims that the Warren Report is the gospel truth...and Hoover never had his "Extra Special " Special agents....  But then he warns that anybody posting derogatory accusations about Hoover should be in "fear of the FBI death squad" 

[Richard Smith]

Mr "Smith" wrote...."And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad."

This statement reveals that the author is a simpleton......   It's a conflicting dichotomy.....and it reveals the shallow "reasoning" that Mr "Smith" routinely displays.  On one hand Smith claims that the Warren Report is the gospel truth...and Hoover never had his "Extra Special " Special agents....  But then he warns that anybody posting derogatory accusations about Hoover should be in "fear of the FBI death squad"

Ugh.  You cannot be that dense.  It's called being satirical to point out the inconsistency of your baseless claims.  You are the one suggesting the FBI was involved in the murder of the President.  That is a very serious charge and denotes a belief that they are a dangerous organization.  If they are so dangerous, however, then why to you feel fine posting such accusations on a public forum? 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There is no evidence presented - none - that Hoover had a "blackmail" file on Redlich. There is no evidence presented that Redlich was blackmailed. There is no evidence presented that he did things that he could be blackmailed for. Where is the evidence? Present it.

And there is no evidence presented (only your speculation) that Hoover, or anybody else, needed to blackmail Redlich.

He was at the center of the report. He was THE main person involved. If you believe the WR was a deliberate, willful lie then you have to believe that Redlich was the main creator of this lie.

BS, he could have been the executor of the lie, without actually knowing it and while acting in good faith. You keep on ignoring the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.

He had numerous opportunities to reveal this so-called coverup

If - and that's a massive "if" - he even knew or understood it had been a coverup,

Let's see if you get this through your skull; every wrongful conviction is based on false, manipulated or misrepresented evidence, yet highly educated people like judges and prosecutors are frequently, and most often unknowingly, fooled by the evidence presented to them to such an extent that they end up sending an innocent person to jail or the chair.

So, don't even try to suggest that something like that couldn't possibly have happened to Redlich.

Oh, something "possibly" could have happened? This is what your response is? Fantasies? Make believe time? You can't respond to my post so you have to rely on fantasies, on complete speculation about something "possibly" happening.

Yes, let's all make things up. And then claim that those who think Oswald was the assassin are the ones speculating. Neat trick.

You have presented no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. There is no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have presented none, you have none to present, there is none. Period.

I am stating facts: there is no evidence whatsoever to any claims that "something" happened to Redlich that led him to falsifying the Warren Commission Report. To say that "something" could have happened - when there is no evidence for it - is meaningless and can be dismissed out of hand. No serious person, no adult, discusses an event and says "something else" could have happened. Who reasons like this? Where did you learn to think like this?

If you think the Warren Commission was a lie, then you must state that Redlich was the major actor in producing this lie.

When innocent men are framed, the framers know they are producing false information. Redlich was not a judge, not an observer; he was the man who was given this supposed false evidence. He even produced some of this supposed "false" evidence - the single bullet theory - himself. But you suggest he didn't know all of these lies? Really, this is what you are reduced to arguing?

That is like saying that a detective leading an investigation, the detective assembling the evidence, the detective interviewing the witnesses, the detective reviewing the evidence and the detective who produced some of the evidence didn't know all of the evidence was a lie. The detective didn't realize everything was manufactured and false. This is utterly absurd.

I have presented evidence indicating that Redlich was simply not the type of person who would conspire with other to essentially stage a right wing coup of the government. There is nothing in his background to indicate he would. Redlich lived until 2003, about 40 years after the assassination. But he never figured out - according to you - that he was lied to? That "something" happened to him in his investigation?

Here's your problem: you are trapped. You know there is no evidence of his amorality here; so you have to say "something" could have happened. You never heard of Redlich before my post. You didn't know anything about him. But because he simply can't fit into your conspiracy belief that the WC was a lie, you have to make things up in order to keep your conspiracy beliefs from collapsing around you.

It didn't happen. Redlich wasn't a liar. "Something" didn't happen to him. Period.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's Walt's claim that Hoover was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States and frame Oswald for the crime.  I agree that is baseless.  I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative that Hoover was an all powerful figure capable of blackmail while suggesting that he had to resort to murder in the case of JFK.  There were ample grounds to blackmail JFK based on his extramarital affairs, drug use, and serious medical issues that he lied about while running for president.  Those are documented facts and provide the basis for blackmail.  On at least one occasion, Hoover did confront JFK with information concerning the mob connections of one of his girlfriends.  There is no speculation that Hoover maintained such information on various presidents including JFK.  What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.

I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative

It wasn't a logical fallacy. It was an opinion, just like your counter claim

What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.

What really is a waste of time is you spouting your pretentious opinions as if they mean something or add something to a pointless discussion.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Earl Warren lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Normal Redlich lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

John Hart Ely lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Lee Rankin lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Gerald Ford lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

I'll stop at five although I could post two dozen names, three dozen names. On and on and on. Supreme Court Justices, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, solicitor generals, presidents...all men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.

"Something" happened to all of them. Or may have. Or "something something".

Impossible. We're reasoning with people who just make things up. And then they demand we prove their fantasies are wrong.

[Walt Cakebread]

Earl Warren lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Normal Redlich lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

John Hart Ely lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Lee Rankin lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Gerald Ford lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

I'll stop at five although I could post two dozen names, three dozen names. On and on and on. Supreme Court Justices, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, solicitor generals, presidents...all men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.

"Something" happened to all of them. Or may have. Or "something something".

Impossible. We're reasoning with people who just make things up. And then they demand we prove their fantasies are wrong.

men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.

Yes, honorable and venerated intelligent men ........ Who realized that the country could be destroyed if it was disclosed that there was a conspiracy behind the murder....and the murder was simply an old fashioned coup d e'tat, with LBJ standing in the wings to grab the reins of power.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, something "possibly" could have happened? This is what your response is? Fantasies? Make believe time? You can't respond to my post so you have to rely on fantasies, on complete speculation about something "possibly" happening.

I am not impressed by your lack of comprehensive reading.

Yes, let's all make things up. And then claim that those who think Oswald was the assassin are the ones speculating. Neat trick.

I made nothing up and of course you are speculating. Making assumptions about a man you do not know is by definition speculation.

You have presented no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. There is no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have presented none, you have none to present, there is none. Period.

This is where your lack of reading comprehension is getting the better of you. I have not claimed that "something" happened to Redlich.

I am stating facts: there is no evidence whatsoever to any claims that "something" happened to Redlich that led him to falsifying the Warren Commission Report. To say that "something" could have happened - when there is no evidence for it - is meaningless and can be dismissed out of hand. No serious person, no adult, discusses an event and says "something else" could have happened. Who reasons like this? Where did you learn to think like this?

No. You are presenting your opinions and are calling them "facts". There is a difference!

I'm not sure why you keep ranting on about "something" happened to Redlich, when I made no such claim to begin with. You really need to try harder and learn to understand what is written, because at the moment you're clearly completely clueless.

If you think the Warren Commission was a lie, then you must state that Redlich was the major actor in producing this lie.

No. That's just the limited capacity of your brain at work. I have already explained it to you. I'm not going to do it again.

When innocent men are framed, the framers know they are producing false information. Redlich was not a judge, not an observer; he was the man who was given this supposed false evidence. He even produced some of this supposed "false" evidence - the single bullet theory - himself. But you suggest he didn't know all of these lies? Really, this is what you are reduced to arguing?

All this does is show conclusively that my point went completely over your head.

That is like saying that a detective leading an investigation, the detective assembling the evidence, the detective interviewing the witnesses, the detective reviewing the evidence and the detective who produced some of the evidence didn't know all of the evidence was a lie. The detective didn't realize everything was manufactured and false. This is utterly absurd.

Really? I recently posted the text below, which you - of course - duly ignored.

Let's see if you (want to) understand how something like that could hypothetically work. For instance; a superior officer (who himself is under orders from somebody higher up) tells a subordinate to go to the Secret Service garage and search for bullet fragments in the President's limo. The subordinate doesn't know a team of FBI experts is on it's way to do the same. So, the subordinate disturbs the crime scene, fails to make photographs or document anything, and just removes the bullet fragements from the limo. He then brings them to his superior, who in turn passes them on to a representative of the man above him. No documents are signed and no chain of custody is established. A little later the representative returns and hands back the bullet fragment to the superior officer, who in turn hands them back to his subordinate with the order to deliver them to the FBI experts and tell them they came from the car. The FBI experts have no other real option but to accept the fragments and believe that they came from the limo, and so those fragments end up in the evidence against Oswald because they turn out to be bullets fired from an MC rifle.

It is quite possible, in this scenario, that none of the men involved were part of any kind of conspiracy, at least not knowingly. But it could be they were used. They just followed orders and the secrecy act would ensure that they would not talk to anybody about what happened for a long time. So, now this evidence reaches Redlich, through a report and/or testimony of an FBI expert. Does Redlich have any reason to suspect there could be something wrong with this evidence? The answer is of course; no!

If I follow your "reasoning" all the people involved in this aspect of the case alone, including Redlich, would have known what was going on and they all kept their mouth shut. Now, that's really utterly absurd

I have presented evidence indicating that Redlich was simply not the type of person who would conspire with other to essentially stage a right wing coup of the government. There is nothing in his background to indicate he would. Redlich lived until 2003, about 40 years after the assassination. But he never figured out - according to you - that he was lied to? That "something" happened to him in his investigation?

Pathetic. First of all you have presented no evidence whatsoever, merely opinions of others. Secondly, you can speculate all you want about what Redlich may or may not have figured out, but it will never be anything more than meaningless speculation.

Here's your problem: you are trapped. You know there is no evidence of his amorality here; so you have to say "something" could have happened. You never heard of Redlich before my post. You didn't know anything about him. But because he simply can't fit into your conspiracy belief that the WC was a lie, you have to make things up in order to keep your conspiracy beliefs from collapsing around you.

It didn't happen. Redlich wasn't a liar. "Something" didn't happen to him. Period.

I have no such problem. It's a pathetic strawman you made up.

You're the one who is desperately trying to argue that because Redlich was such a stand up guy, the WC report could not possibly be a lie. It's naive to the extreme. You really need to get out into the real world more often because real life is often more weird than fiction.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

JFK conspiracy believers are just like the Trump conspiracy believers, those who say the election was stolen.

"Something" happened to the voting machines, "something" happened to the ballots, "something" happened to Redlich...."something" "something" "something".....