The Warren Commission Sham

[Lance Payette]

Lance... yes, we shouldn't take ourselves or our theories too seriously... a real challenge for humans in general.

I think some of what drives my thinking on this subject, is knowing - or thinking I know - a little too much about some of the possible players on the stage, like LBJ and Hoover.

AND Arlen Specter's theory about the single bullet! Dang, look at the car Specter... Windshield is shot and the car molding... along with JFK and Connally... and the limo is whisked off the scene to be quickly repaired...

AND driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking and braking until the fatal shot!

AND Hoover's "exerting pressure" on his boys to quickly end their investigation and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin...

Hoover, Greer, Specter... don't look in my face and lie to me! Yeah, that drives some of my thinking on this, too...

All right... peace!

 

One problem is that JFK was detested by such a diverse group of organizations and individuals, and so many stood to benefit from his demise, that weaving superficially plausible conspiracy theories is easy.

Then we factor in that most of the usual suspects - LBJ, Hoover, CIA, Mafia, etc. - were fully capable of ghastly deeds, in some cases up to and including assassinations and murders.

Then we factor in some huge motives - LBJ becomes President, Hoover isn't forced into retirement, the CIA has a friend in the White House, Castro is ousted, the heat is off the Mafia and their Cuban empire is restored, revenge is had for the Bay of Pigs, the oil depletion allowance survives, etc., etc.

It all starts to look, as it once did to me, like "How could this NOT have been a conspiracy??? OF COURSE, it was - the only issue is exactly who did it and how."

However, over my decades as a lawyer my conspiracy-prone mindset was gradually subordinated to the need for real evidence, reasonable inferences and critical thinking rather than Gee Whiz speculation and leaps of logic.

The more I studied and analyzed, the more the LN perspective made sense - not rock-solid sense, not a religious belief, but simply the most plausible explanation. If ever a conspiracy theory seems more plausible, I'll change my mind.

In many ways, the CT community is its own worst enemy. The wild diversity of theories, some of the most prominent being preposterous. The focus on anomalies and inconsistencies that in themselves go nowhere and that the CTers don't even attempt to fit into a coherent theory. The obsession with the WC as though its shortcomings were somehow proof of something. The absurd effort to play defense counsel for Oswald. The venom toward the LN position as though this were a religious debate (many of the LNers being equally guilty, of course).

If there were a single, reasonably evidence-based, reasonably plausible and coherent theory, one that at least generated interest among professional historians and journals, I and pretty much everyone else would listen and perhaps be swayed. As it is, the leading conspiracy exponents simply don't generate this sort of interest and strike most reasonable people, including me, as self-promoting cranks and hucksters.

[David Von Pein]

You do know that when you impeach Luke Mooney's claims of Specifically where the Chicken Bones were positioned on the TSBD 6th Floor, you also Impeach his finding a "CARCANO" Rifle on the TSBD 6th Floor too? If Mooney can screw up the specific location of chicken bones, he can also confuse a Carcano with a MAUSER.

But Mooney didn't find the rifle. Eugene Boone did.

[Tom Graves]

If there were a single, reasonably evidence-based, reasonably plausible and coherent theory, one that at least generated interest among professional historians and journals, I and pretty much everyone else would listen and perhaps be swayed. As it is, the leading conspiracy exponents simply don't generate this sort of interest and strike most reasonable people, including me, as self-promoting cranks and hucksters.

Otherwise known as "useful idiots" in the unwitting service of "former" KGB* officer, Vladimir Putin and his favorite "useful idiot" (or worse), Donald J. Trump.

*Today's SVR and FSB

[Charles Collins]

  You do know that when you impeach Luke Mooney's claims of Specifically where the Chicken Bones were positioned on the TSBD 6th Floor, you also Impeach his finding a "CARCANO" Rifle on the TSBD 6th Floor too? If Mooney can screw up the specific location of chicken bones, he can also confuse a Carcano with a MAUSER.

That’s nonsense. A witness can most certainly be wrong about one aspect of their account but be correct about another aspect.

[Dan O'meara]

Click your heels and repeat three times, "I will be rational, I will be rational, I will be rational."

Alyea's observations and statements have NO BEARING??? They would be the EXPLANATION. He says the lunch remains were found on the FIFTH floor and that he believes the officers' testimonies were untruthful efforts to be consistent with their mistaken reports. He was THERE and he expresses CERTAINTY on this. I don't know if he's correct, but to say his statement has no bearing is nonsense. Moreover, the officers' statements are not even consistent; even if they were true, they would not unequivocally establish the precise location. You likewise keep misstating the facts by your insistence the WC ignored all this. They did not ignore it. The officers' testimonies and BRW's statements are there for all to see. The WC was simply unable to resolve the inconsistencies and, like me, ultimately concluded it was unimportant. Your mantra that there is "zero uncertainty" is Conspiracy Goof wishful thinking - there is considerable uncertainty as to the location of the lunch remains and TOTAL UNCERTAINTY as to the significance, if any.

This is yet another issue that has been BEATEN TO DEATH for decades. Do you think you're breaking new ground or adding something new? WHAT'S THE POINT? If you want to expand the uncertainty about the lunch remains into BRW being a possible accomplice to the assassination, go for it - you're simply exposing the sheer irrationality of Conspiracy Thinking.

Here's an idea: Give us your theory in 50 words or less. Explain WHAT in BRW's ENTIRE LIFE would add any plausibility to him being involved in the JFKA in any way. If, in fact, he saw Oswald prepping for the JFKA and said "Oh, Lordy, Mr. Oswald, I don't know what you're about to do, but I'm gonna slide outta here and watch from the fifth floor," the significance would be WHAT? This is Conspiracy Thinking to the nth degree - take some utterly inconsequential piece of evidence and expand it into entirely speculative Evidence of Conspiracy with no regard whatsoever for context, logic or rationality.

Alyea reporting lunch remains on the 5th floor has no bearing on the testimonies/statements of the six officers who discovered lunch remains on the 6th floor.
It is irrational and desperate to suggest otherwise.
There is zero uncertainty as to where these officers discovered the lunch remains,
Suggesting otherwise is also desperate and irrational.
To suggest that the WC did not ignore the testimonies/statements of these officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains is also desperate and irrational.
These officers collectively report lunch remains discovered on the Sniper's Nest - fact.
This vitally important evidence is ignored by the WC - fact.
It's a disgrace and is just one example of the deception contained in the Warren Commission Report.

As a Lone Nutter all your eggs are in the Warren Commission basket.
All of them.
Your willingness to suggest these officers were lying is a symptom of the corner you have painted yourself into.

[Tom Graves]

As a Lone Nutter all your eggs are in the Warren Commission basket.

O'meara,

Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?

[Dan O'meara]

This passage from Four Days in November captures my thinking nicely. Note the bolded sentence.

During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the south easternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964) Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83) Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)

Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president? I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.

Or, in Dan's case, that the not-wholly-consistent six officers' statements "are an end in themselves" and Alyea's statement and the internal inconsistencies in BRW's statements are irrelevant "and nothing else has to be shown or argued."

I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.

I need to explain the relevance of the Warren Commission ignoring vital evidence in a thread entitled "The Warren Commission Sham"?
Really?

The Warren Commission was a fake investigation in that the result of the investigation had been determined before the investigation had even begun.
Oswald was the lone assassin. Hoover had determined this outcome less than 48 hours after the assassination.
The point of the Warren Commission was to construct the Oswald-Did-It narrative from the available evidence and testimonies.
This thread is going to be a compilation of the evidence/testimonies the Warren Commission had to ignore/manipulate/fabricate in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.

The discovery of lunch remains on top of the SN had to be ignored because it indicated someone other than Oswald had their lunch in the SN.
To suggest the officers lied in their testimonies and the reports they made the day after the assassination is as wild as any Tinfoil nonsense.

The fabrication of Charles Givens' 'return to the 6th floor' while ignoring the testimonies/statements of the floor-laying crew and Eddie Piper had to be done in order to create a window of opportunity for Oswald to assemble the rifle and prepare the SN. Any testimony showing that Oswald had actually come down to the first floor had to be ignored but worse than that was the fabrication of the Givens nonsense so they could say that the last employee saw Oswald on the 6th floor somewhere near the southeast corner.

The testimony of Arnold Rowland had to be discredited. His observation of the man with the rifle on the 6th floor destroyed the narrative the WC was trying to build. The sleight of hand the WC used to side-step this damning evidence demonstrates the depths they were willing to sink to in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.

The testimony of Vicki Adams also had to be discredited. This was done by stating an outright lie in the Report - that Lovelady had seen Adams on the first floor when he entered the building (Lovelady had said no such thing). They also ignored the blatant lie both Shelley and Lovelady introduced about Baker and Truly not entering the TSBD building for at least 3 minutes. The Commission knew this was a lie as they had conducted there own time trials showing Baker and Truly entered the building within seconds.

Then there is the manipulation of evidence such as CE399. Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. CE399 was entered into evidence as the bullet found in Parkland "subject to further proof". This proof never materialized and was never going to materialize. It was entered into evidence without being identified by anyone. The most startling aspect of this is the testimony of Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet - he was not asked a single question about the bullet itself. Not one. Even though it was a chance to finally identify CE399 he wasn't shown the bullet or a picture of it or even asked to describe it.

And then there is the mystery of Day's missing palmprint. How was it that the palmprint and black powder on the barrel of the rifle when Day sent it away had completely disappeared by the time it reached Latona? The way this issue was side-stepped reveals more deception.

These are a few things off the top of my head and that's without getting into the witnesses who should have been called.
The Warren Commission was a pantomime of deception. The illusion of an investigation attempting to uncover the truth about the assassination.
If it was the case that Oswald was the lone assassin then none of this deception would have been necessary. It would have been a simple story revealed by a straight forward investigation.
That the Warren Commission Report is rife with deception tells it's own story.

[Dan O'meara]

O'meara,

Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?

 

Tommy the Commie strikes again!