Reply
Thu 30 Jan, 2003 10:46 am
Wolf, whether or not Oswald acted alone, forensic and ballistic evidence place him at the 7th Floor Window of The Texas Book Repository at and before the time of the shooting. Some bullets came from that window (proven conclusively by critical examination of The Zapruder Film and recent computer simulations). No evidence puts anyone else at that window; strong evidence puts Oswald there at the right time with The Rifle in his possession and control. There may have been other actors, there may not. There may have been other shooters in other locations, there may not. Oswald had means (The Rifle was his, and it was found) and the opportunity (He was there at the right time, no one else seems to have been) Oswald killed Officer Tibbets ... hardly the action of an innocent man. There are questions, certainly, and The Warren Report leaves much room for doubt regarding many things. However, at the very least, Oswald was among those who shot at Kennedy, and Oswald was a passable marksman easily capable of hitting a slowly moving man-sized target from a few hundred feet ... more than once in the time allotted. Jack Ruby certainly confounded things, but an examination of HIS life reveals he confounded lots of things, and exhibited clear signs of instability. He may or may not have been a "Paid Cover-up Assassin". We likely never will know. There is much we likely never will know.
One thing which calls for dismissal of a "Huge, High Level Coverup" is that no such conspiracy has ever been proven, wholly apart from the fact that multi-player conspiricies are notoriously difficult things to pull off ... just ask Dick Nixon or any of the former Enron Executives. Because one wishes to believe or disbelieve at thing neither validates nor invalidates that thing. Whether or not others were involved, Oswald shot at Kennedy and hit him. Whether or not there was a "Conspiracy", it is vanishingly unlikely, human nature and forensic science being what they are, that such a conspiracy could remain hidden over a four decade period of intense scrutiny. Oswald gets the nod, in my book for at least partial responsibility, with no clear evidence implicating anyone else, nor is there any clear evidence indicating anyone else NEEDED to be involved. There is a principle of logic known as Occam's Razor. Look it up.
Osama/911? Apart from videotaped gloating on his part, considerable financial trail leads from the crash sites directly to The Organization headed by him, The Hijackers have all been tied conclusivley to Al Queda, and frankly, there is no credible evidence to the contrary. I suggest another application of Occam's Razor.
I have no fear you will accept the arguments I have posited. However, untill such time as may be revealed sworn, independently verified testimony, documentation with impeccable provenance, and physical evidence of incontestable other indication may be produced, a reasoning individual is forced to draw certain conclusions. Odd, nefarious conspiracies seem sweet at first taste, but become increasingly less satisfying as they are chewed, and are very, very difficult to swallow. I've taken them clear off my diet. You are welcome to dine from a different table if you wish, but many will not favor the spread you set out.
Hysteria, buzzwords, ridicule, outrage, condemnation, allegations, and assetions, I submit again, do not support a position, and those who seek to use such to put forward an argument thereby diminish themselves and discredit their argument. That there may be questions regarding the minutiae of a matter in no way invalidates the veracity of the hard evidence which supports any conclusions which may be drawn regarding that matter. Critical thinking is long on fact and intollerant of fancy.
You pose arguments some do not accept. Others pose arguments you choose to not accept. Your arguments have little critical weight. Arguments counter to yours are well and voluminously supported by numerous criteria. Whether or not your arguments may have validity, they glaringly lack credible, logical, verifiable support. That brings us right back to Occam's Razor.
Don't cut yourself in your enthusiasm to slice your way to The Truth.
A further caveat: Please confine yourself to discussing the issue, not the issue's debators. Any criticism of any participant's style of debate should be based on accepted principals of discourse and evidentiary presentment and examination. This is an excersize in forensics and reason. No nasty names, vile accusations, preposterous, unsupported allegations, diatribe, polemic, dogmatics, didacticism, or other inanity or unpleasantness will be acceptable, thank you.
timber
Wow, timber, that was a mouth full. And I agree with all of it.
c.i.
The CIA has it's own real problems to deal with without trying to attach conspiracy theories which don't stick. Timber is right -- if you can't debate the message, don't try and shoot the messenger.
The clandestine charasteristic of our secret services have lead to all sorts of breaks downs in the machinery. It's the cogs in the machine that often don't mesh. Bureaucracy in action is sometimes a horrifying sight. That is, if you actually know what's going on!
Will Homeland Security help? I'm not convinced -- it's been proven again and again that our airports and borders are still vulnerable.
I'm under the impression that I never tried to shoot the messenger. English is not my mother tongue, so maybe my phrases are not always as nuanced as they should be. Please be convinced of my good intentions. Timber, I am very well aware of Occham's razor, as I have a masters degree in philosophy. Critical thinking, scepticism, you name it... I had the drill. I would like to believe the official versions on JFK & 9/11. I'm willing to admit that I am wrong. I hope the same from you. May I also say that a majority of the European people does not believe the official versions on the crimes
in casu.
Now on to the beef:
When I asked for evidence in the LHO/OBL accusations, I was trying to put the spot on the fact that the evidence in the two greatest crimes in American history is very flimsy at best. Non-governmental circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and private investigation often sheds a more credible light on these cases. Conspiratory evidence has indeed been digged up by them over the past three decades, only not to be picked up by the official investigators, hence not receiving the media attention it deserves.
The prerogative sceptic position from Occham exactly accentuates that there is no reason to trust any investigation unless it is 100 % convincing, as 'the simplest explanation' doesn't mean the most unfounded one, but the best proven one.
PT1 CONFESSION
A primordial factor in any provable guilt is to obtain a confession. Neither LHO nor OBL confessed to the crimes of JFK/911, well to the contrary:
-LHO shouted "I'm a patsy" when arrested, he never confessed, and no notes were taken during his interrogation. The next day he was eliminated.
-OBL stated on 9/12 that he had nothing to do with the attacks. No terrorist in human history has ever stated his innocence when his supposedly personally planned attack was a success. It's contradictory to the terrorist code: you claim victory, you don't hide and say it must have been an inside job. Furthermore, his home video is void of inculpating evidence - cheering and being surprised on the outcome of the attacks does not mean you planned them.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
Let's take it from there. I hope the open mindedness will be reciprocal.
OK, let us assume that no one needs CIA, and such an organization will be dismantled. Who will in such a case provide the President with vital information essential for making serious decisions? Or President will reach news through morning newspaper?
Much clearer a proposition, wolf. Your initial inference was that the CIA was behind manufacturing evidence -- I think it's more that the evidence is not there and may never be clear on the Kennedy assasination. If your inference is that they set up Oswald and then had him killed, hiring a dupe like Jack Ruby and sealing up any leaks is just too far fetched for me. I agree with Timber on that one.
As far as the evidence that Bin Laden was behind the attacks even though he initially claimed he didn't do it, subsequent vocalizations certainly strongly suggest he was taking credit. I don't believe all the intelligence is available to the public and is still classified on that one so we can suppose until our faces turn blue and it would still be another conspiracy theory. It's certainly no reason to consider disbanding the CIA and I'm not sure its new organization and protocol isn't going to backfire but then, it's espionage and a very dirty business. It is the philosophy of doing onto others before they do onto you, an unfortunate anomaly of modern civilization (such as it is -- I'm not always willing to refer to it as a civilization, but more a dehumanized technological mismash governed by educated apes.
So LHO killing JFK is not far-fetched, but the CIA killing him and covering it up is?
...
Steisdd: the CIA as it is evolving is no longer an intelligence agency, but a pro-active imperialist instrument for the wrong industries - i.e. industries like oil that slowly but surely turn the Earth into a very unhealthy place to live in.
Wolf, be aasured I did not mean to imply you were attempting to shoot the messenger, I sought only to point to general local disaproval of the practice. Your most recent post reassures me you are cognizant of "The Rules" and amenable to the proposition.
What Occam's Razor Theory says to me is: The simplest possible explanation NOT AT ODDS WITH THE OBSERVED PHENOMONA has a statistically higher probability of correctness than will any other postulation.
I disagree that "Confession" is critical to "Proof of Guilt". It is not uncommon for a patently guilty party to deny culpability to the end, and for obviously uninvolved parties to claim credit for actions in which they clearly could have played no part. Confessions and eyewitness accounts share well known and undisputed difficulties, and either are valid only to the extent their postulate is served by other undependently verified evidence. Confessions are all too often false, eyewitnesses all too often see or recall different things. Was it a red sedan or brown van ... was he wearing glasses, was there a weapon, was it a revolver or an automatic ... you get the idea. If 20 people see the same thing happen, a dozen or more different recountings of details, large and small, will eventuate. Any notorious crime may and often will have dubious claimants. "Proof" demands more substantial foundation. That is the function of the legal system.
Theories abound, whether 9/11 or JFK. No "HARD EVIDENCE" invalidates or otherwise effectively refutes generally posited and accepted conclusions drawn from disclosed, observable phenomona. Any of the alternate theories require considerable assumption at best, and disregard of other verified indicators in any event. Powerful, well supported arguments support "The Official Version", or at least major parts thereof, of either event.
Hearsay, annecdotal commentary, "What IF", and "There has to be a more satisfying explanation" are not evidence. Fingerprints, financial documents, telephone records, verified sworn testimony, and physical items recovered from or clearly related to the crime scene are evidence. There may well be other explanations than those which I am inclined to accept. I have apprised myself of as much evidence in either matter as I have been able to access,
and while I may have questions, those questions are neither addressed by nor resolved by critical examination of any counter claim. Occam's Razor. Things could change, new material may come to light, but with what we've got now, that's where I am at.
I'm an old-fashioned sort; I can only build with materials I have at hand. Conjuring, inventing, and other magic are not among my skills.
timber
Any may choose to accept or reject any proposal.
Yes, we know, President Johnson gave the CIA a lifetime invitation to his Texas ranch. "JFK" is effective cinema but fiction overshadows fact and conspiracy theories are so often gossamer fantasies that wile away time, like reading one's horoscope in the newspaper.
Quote:well supported arguments support "The Official Version", or at least major parts thereof, of either event
Do they really?
It sounds to me as if all the replying forum-members have a blind faith in the investigative results that our security offices provide us. The point is: if those offices, or central parts thereof (hierarchies), are involved in the crime, you will not receive the truth. That's very simple. If the perpetrators are in the government or have a lot of high placed sympathizers with the crime, you can never expect to have an independent investigation, do you?
That's exactly the case with the assassination of president Kennedy and with the horrible crimes of 9/11. Is the evidence credible? No it isn't.
Just one of many examples: Oswald could not have shot Kennedy because of one very simple point: the fatal gunshot blew away the back of JFK's skull, as is visible on the original autopsy pictures. L.H. Oswald could not have been the killer, as he allegedly shot JFK far from the back and above. A shot from this position would blow the front part of a skull: a bullet entering an object goes through it and makes a gap on exit - ask any soldier. Ergo: Oswald can not be the killer. Simple technical impossibility - and the JFK case is littered with such inconsistencies.
Same with 9/11. Just this: Boeings flown off course by Cessna trained Arabs, wandering freely around for half an hour without being intercepted by any jet is not ever gonna happen in the real world, or is at least so inculpating to the hierarchical top of the security forces as to have their asses thrown out of the White House - i.e. D. Rumsfeld and his superiors. It's not only unimaginable how someone with a few weeks of Cessna experience can fly a Boeing without the thing immediately hitting the dirt, but not intercepting them is plainly absurd - no one in the world believes the contrary.
Who benefited at both occasions? The ruling administrations. What happened with the accused perpetrators? They were immediately terminated. Clean and swift. Is the evidence undisputable? Far from it; it's based on the hearsay you are accusing 'conspiracy theories' to be based upon. It all depends whether you trust the hierarchies of the investigators to be trustworthy persons. In the JFK/911 cases, I assure you - and history has proven this - they are not worth your trust. You can be next, if push comes to shove.
wolf wrote:Just one of many examples: Oswald could not have shot Kennedy because of one very simple point: the fatal gunshot blew away the back of JFK's skull, as is visible on the original autopsy pictures. L.H. Oswald could not have been the killer, as he allegedly shot JFK far from the back and above. A shot from this position would blow the front part of a skull: a bullet entering an object goes through it and makes a gap on exit - ask any soldier. Ergo: Oswald can not be the killer. Simple technical impossibility - and the JFK case is littered with such inconsistencies.
You ever do much hunting? I mean putting bullets into flesh and bone? Odd things happen sometimes. Apart from that, I have seen battlefield injuries that are even wierder. Then too, there are serious questions as to the procedures followed during "The Autopsy", and of the method and manner by which those results were both recorded at the time and later archived. By accepted evidentiary practice, the autopsy results would not qualify as trial evidence. The "Evidence" you cite is not "Evidence" in any legal sense. It lacks provenance and there is no clear and unbroken "Chain of custody". "The Garrison Report" and similar "
Exposes" are laughable in their inattention to accepted investigatory practice. Sorry, I just can't buy your argument there.
Quote:Same with 9/11. Just this: Boeings flown off course by Cessna trained Arabs, wandering freely around for half an hour without being intercepted by any jet is not ever gonna happen in the real world, or is at least so inculpating to the hierarchical top of the security forces as to have their asses thrown out of the White House - i.e. D. Rumsfeld and his superiors. It's not only unimaginable how someone with a few weeks of Cessna experience can fly a Boeing without the thing immediately hitting the dirt, but not intercepting them is plainly absurd - no one in the world believes the contrary.
Nonsense. Keeping a modern airliner in the air once it is airborne is a no-brainer. Landing and taking off are a bit trickier, but contemporary commercial aircraft, particularly very large ones, simply want to fly, not fall out of the air. A bit of practice in a light plane and a little simulator time, and a reasonably bright person with decent eye-hand coordination can even manage moderate altitude changes and broad turns ... just the manuevers performed by the subject aircraft, by the way.
As to the matter of "Intercepting" them ... again, your speculation betrays your lack of familiarity with the situation. Following the end of "The Cold War", the practice of having interceptor fighter aircraft at "Ready Alert" and available for "Scramble" was discontinued due to its enormous cost and intensive manpower requirements. A plane which is fully armed, connected to ground power, avionics and weapons systems on and operating, fuel and hydraulic systems pressurized, engines preheated, and sitting near the launch end of a runway can be in the air a couple minutes after an ass gets strapped into it, yes. It also requires more or less constant attention from a fairly sizeable groundcrew, and we haven't even considered getting a pilot into flight gear. A plane powered down and in a hanger or revetment is another proposition altogether. Lacing into a G-Suit, Mae West, and an amazing assortment of other flight gear takes a little time. Cold-starting a modern fighter is also considerably more complicated and time-consuming than just jumping in and turning a key. I was astounded any fighters were "on scene" as quickly, if uselessly, as they were. That was one hell of a job of "Rapid Response". By the way, I hold a pilot's license, and I have a little military jet time.
Now, please understand, Wolf, I don't fault your skepticism of Government. That's healthy. I just can't get behind your arguments. To my experience and reasoning, they just aren't credible. The facts I look at are not the same as the facts you believe you see. And again, I submit that Occam's Razor cuts to the conclusions I posit far more cleanly than to the conclusions you would forward. Don't get mad ... that's just the way I see things and part of why I see them that way.
timber
Concerning 9/11, I hope everyone is indeed Occhamian enough to recognize valid arguments when they present themselves. It's just as unproven that OBL was behind it as it's unproven that there was a conspiracy involved.
However, the evidence on both sides weighs in favor of the conspiracy when it comes to credibility.
A shady video of a gloating OBL and stolen Arab passports are the Feds evidence. This is the international media evidence:
http://lightscion.com/9-11_evidence.htm
What do my fellow forumers think of this? Don't be shy - you deserve better than your present administration. And this comes from a big America fan!
wolf, Unfortunately, any crackpot can set up a web site, and declare anything they wish. If anybody cares to bother, there are as many or more arguments against what that link claims. c.i.
Wolf
People used to believe the earth was flat. In all likelihood if you look hard enough you may find a link to substantiate that. Crackpots run rampant on the web there is nothing to stop them.
There's enough fabricated garbage on the Internet to grow a nose long enough to reach Mars. We also didn't really go to the moon -- Kubrick while filming "2001" also had enough time to similate the voyage and even two others! Bullshit.
Wolf, sorry to say it, but folks like you make profits a sure thing for fad diet promoters and the purveyors of sexual enhancemnet potions. As long as you're here, do you need a bridge? There's one in Brooklyn I'm not using ... We can work out the details with PayPal.
timber
au1929- the world is not flat?
Timber
Please do not sell my bridge.
This is gotten sidetracked into a discussion of conspiracy theory sites on the Internet -- it could be split out into a new discussion as this should be on topic which is not whether there is any "evidence" of past transgressions of the CIA. I don't believe anyone of any political persuasion on this forum is putting much credibility in Internet sources who link to the same "documentation" on such things as conspiracies on the source of AIDS and CIA covert activity. There's more in substantiated sources (thankfully from editor oversight journalistic periodicals and books) to debunk these theories.
As far as how the CIA operates today, I believe they should be working more closely with the diplomatic wing of the government and especially with the diplomats in each country they are operating in.
Quote:conspiracy theory sites on the Internet
Again, it depends on the messenger. I'm sure you wouldn't call these 'conspiracy sites', would you?
CBS
BBC
Salon.com
Judicial Watch.com
Center for Global Research
American Free Press
Newsweek
John Pilger
I'm not trying to hurt your pride here, believe me. I'm looking for neutrality and honesty, and hoping those are still in the American way of life.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace