Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oswald and paraffin tests ---

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 10:45 PM
Original message
Oswald and paraffin tests ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdj0T4QDs8Y

As I recall the story on this . . . .
if you so much as read a newspaper that day, you're hands would test positive for having fired a gun.

HOWEVER . . . NOTE TESTS OF OSWALD'S CHEEKS SHOWED THAT HE HAD NOT FIRED A RIFLE.



and WC report . . "Paraffin test on Oswald was completely unreliable."


-------

Meanwhile -- for those who haven't yet gotten the news -- Oswald was working for the CIA on high level assignments and probably also for the FB. Oswald was trained as a spy and sent to Russia.


Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
deen Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. "I am a patsy!"
And Jack Ruby, on video, confirmed people "very high positions" were in on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Jack Ruby was actually a rather brave man in trying to warn us ---
There's an interesting letter by him -- allegedly -- in Jim Marr's book -- "Crossfire" . . .
I'll try to get it up later --

and certainly he tried to get Earl Warren to take him to Washington, DC where he'd be safe
and be able to tell the truth -- asked Warren to do this quite a number of times in the interview.

Dorthy Kilgallen was trying to work with him -- had the only interview alone with him.
She was elimianted quickly.

Ruby had a family that were supposedly be threatened -- a brother and a sister, as I recall.
Yet he was trying to tell the truth -- and I have theories about why he persisted in that.

Supposedly his brother brought a tape recorder to the hospital at one point and he told his story -- and then was forced to deny it.

Basically, in his letter Jack Ruby warns us of very right-wing people -- "Nazis" --



PS: I don't mean to suggest that Ruby wasn't a murderer in reality -
he was a member of organized crime -- a leader in it -- and someone we would all regard
as evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. A few corrections.
There's no evidence Jack Ruby was in the mob, or a leader of it. He was friends with two guys who were suspected of working for a Mafia boss.

Second, on his deathbed Ruby formally stated that he alone was responsible for Oswald's death, no one else. This would seem to imply that his earlier statement to the effect that the world would never know the true facts of the case was based on speculation or guesswork on his part, rather than certain knowledge.

Dorothy Kilgallen died of a combination of barbituates and alcohol at the age of 52. Her husband was home at the time and reported nothing unusual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Untrue -- Ruby made a long list of calls to Mafia figures within a day or so of JFK coup ---
Edited on Mon Nov-05-07 10:38 PM by defendandprotect
Ruby was the "go to guy" in Dallas as LBJ's mistress tells us ---
for anything you wanted --- from contract murders to drugs and prostitutes ---

Ruby's death bed confession was necessary to keep his family from being killed.

Ruby tried many times to get the truth out --
Begging Earl Warren to bring him to DC where he could be safe and tell the truth ---
Writing letters from prison, revealing the "Nazi" nature of the people who had manipulated him --

And Ruby also tried to make recordings telling the truth ---

Ruby, of course, was also killed --- as he predicted.
Evidently injected with cancer cells --- but they slipped up again there because cancer is identifiable as to where it originates --- stomach or respiratory ---
and they had injected the stomach into the respiratory -- or vice versa, I don't recall which way it went -- but it was the wrong cancer in its location.

Dorthy Kilgallen was of course murdered --- as was her friend who she had seemingly left some
of her documents with --

How long has this been a fascist nation ---? I'd guess at least since 1963 . . .


See: High Treason I and II by Livingstone


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Dorothy Kilgallen
"Dorthy Kilgallen was of course murdered "

YouTube - What's My Line ? After death of Dorothy Kilgallen Part 1

Midwest Today | WHO KILLED DOROTHY KILGALLEN?
During her 35-year career as a gossip columnist, crime reporter and panelist on the weekly TV game show, "What's My Line?," Dorothy Kilgallen ("Dolly Mae" to her friends), was a fearless journalist who broke major stories, and was the only reporter to interview Lee Harvey Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby. Her biggest case yet -- investigating President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and finding fault with the official story -- became the last one she ever pursued. She died mysteriously in November 1965, after being threatened, but the cops never probed further. Thanks to reruns on the Game Show Network, fans are still talking about Dorothy, including Larry King of CNN, and Dominick Dunne, who wrote about her in Vanity Fair. Now, shocking new information has emerged.

As a formidable crime reporter, Kilgallen immediately started asking tough questions of the authorities. She had a good contact within the Dallas Police Department, who gave her a copy of the original police log that chronicled the minute-by-minute activities of the department on the day of the assassination, as shown in the radio communications. This allowed her to report that the first reaction of Chief Jesse Curry to the shots in Dealey Plaza was: "Get a man on top of the overpass and see what happened up there." Kilgallen noted that he lied when he told reporters the next day that he initially thought the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository.

Dorothy challenged the credibility of Howard Brennan (who supposedly gave police a description of the shooter). She wrote articles about how important witnesses had been intimidated by the Dallas police or FBI.

In the midst of her aggressive reportage on the Kennedy case, Dorothy met a man who was to intrigue her the last months of her life. He helped her on some of her JFK stories but ultimately was to come under suspicion by amateur sleuths as having been involved in her death. Questions about him were raised by Lee Israel, who wrote the 1979 biography "Kilgallen." She never printed his name, and referred to him only obliquely as "the Out-of-Towner." But he is Ron Pataky, and he was interviewed by Midwest Today publisher Larry Jordan..

On Sept. 25, 1964, Kilgallen ran an interview with Acquilla Clemons, one of the witnesses to the shooting of Officer Tippit whom the Warren Commission never questioned. Clemons told Kilgallen that she saw two men running from the scene, neither of whom fit Oswald's description.

Dorothy also approached one of Jack Ruby's lawyers, Joe Tonahill. Surprisingly, Ruby (who fatally shot Lee Harvey Oswald, who was suspected of assassinating John Kennedy) agreed to talk with her. Some have speculated that Ruby would not have told her anything important, but Tonahill strongly disagrees. "This interview with her was a very significant point in his classless life," Tonahill asserts. He affirmed that Ruby "cooperated with her in every way that he could, and told her the truth as he understood it. It was just a very agreeable conversation between them. I just can't understand people doubting the sincerity of that interview."

The attorney, who observed the two talking, said that "I don't think there was any doubt about it... Jack was highly impressed with Dorothy Kilgallen... Of all the writers that were down there during the Ruby trial -- about 400 from all over the world -- she probably was the one that, to him, was the most significant."

Kilgallen never published any information she obtained from her private talk with Jack Ruby, but Ron Pataky says that's because she was "saving it for a book." She was under contract to Random House, Bennett Cerf's company, to produce a tome that was supposedly going to be a collection of stories about the famous murder trials she had covered. Instead, says Ron, "It would have been on JFK, the entire assassination. That's what we were really working on. Of course. Who better to write it? When she got into the JFK thing, as we all know, the world went crazy. But given her background, given the people she spoke with, don't you think the obvious thing would be that that would be THE book?"

One of the biggest scoops of Kilgallen's career came when she obtained the 102-page transcript of Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commission. Readers were shocked at the hopelessly inept questioning of Ruby by Chief Justice Warren, and by Warren's failure to follow up on the leads Ruby was feeding him. Attorney Melvin Belli called Dorothy's scoop "the ruin of the Warren Commission." Incidentally, John Daly, moderator of "What's My Line?", was married to Chief Justice Warren's daughter, Virginia..

Three days after Dorothy died, Bob and Jean Bach invited her widower Richard Kollmar over for dinner. Bob then asked him, "Dick, what was all that stuff in the folder Dorothy carried around with her about the assassination?" Richard replied, "Robert, I'm afraid that will have to go to the grave with me."

At the funeral, Dorothy's bereaved mother, Mae, angrily confronted Dick Kollmar. Pointing a finger at him, she said, "You killed my daughter, and I will prove it." But Marc Sinclaire said, "I don't think he could have done it. I think more than one person was involved in Dorothy's death."

On January 7, 1971, Richard Kollmar was found dead in bed of a drug overdose, just like Dorothy. David Susskind's widow, Joyce, described Dick as "this guy who was always in his cups. He had the looks, he had the intelligence to do something with his life if he had not had this alcoholic cross to bear."

In 1975, the FBI contacted Dorothy's son, Dickie, still trying to locate his mother's papers. Her JFK notes were never found..

Dick Kollmar told inconsistent stories to the police. In one version, he claimed that Dorothy had returned from "What's My Line?" at 11:30 p.m. "feeling chipper," that she "went in to write column," that he had said goodnight and then gone to bed.

Dorothy's inquiry into Jack Ruby's ties to the mob, and her relentless exploration of the Warren Report's gross inadequacies, threatened to expose dark secrets that powerful people both in and out of government did not want revealed. Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act confirm that the FBI perceived her exposs as enough of a threat that they monitored her closely.

Incredibly, the CIA had 53 field offices around the world watching her on her foreign travels. Given this context, it is hard to see her untimely death as a mere accident.

There is no statute of limitations on murder, and there are enough people alive who could be questioned. But will there be enough interest by the powers that be to pursue this? As Dorothy once reflected, "Justice is a big rug. When you pull it out from under one person, a lot of others fall, too." Justice needs to be done in this case.
http://www.midtod.com/new/articles/7_14_07_Dorothy.html

What's My Line ? Milton Berle Panelist 10/17/65 Part 1
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/1Dallas.htm
http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-killed-do...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Margaret Smith
a close friend of Kilgallen, was murdered two days later.

Dorothy Kilgallen, a crime reporter of the New York Journal, obtained a private interview with Jack Ruby. She told friends that she had information that would "break the case wide open". Aware of what had happened to Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, she handed her interview notes to her friend Margaret Smith. On 8th November, 1965, Kilgallen, was found dead. It was reported she had 'committed suicide'(yeah right). Her friend, Margaret Smith, died two days later.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeaths.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Gerry Patrick Hemming
Thanks nebula -- some more here
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/1Dallas.htm

Too bad there weren't paraffin tests run on this guy. The man who killed Kennedy has died:

Gerry Patrick Hemming Dead at 71 - The Education Forum


Gerry P. Hemming
It has been noted that Hemming travels seem to have mirrored those of Lee Harvey Oswald. This has led to the suggestion that he was working for the FBI in preparing a "legend" for Oswald.

AARC Public Digital Library - Gerald Patrick Hemming, 3-21-78, pg
In August, 1978, Victor Marchetti published an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in the liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article Marchetti argued that the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti's article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote a similar story for the Sunday News Journal.

Gerry Patrick Hemming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conversation Howard Hunt says he was just a benchwarmer in CIA murder of JFK
Octafish's Journal - Regarding JFK AssassinationWho do You Trust: Poppy Bush or Your Own Eyes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Ruby tried desperately to avoid what he had been ordered to do
Ruby made late night phone calls to the DPD in which he "warned" that a group planned to kill Oswald if he (Oswald) was transferred
from the DPD jail the next morning (Sunday).

Ruby apparently had been ordered to kill Oswald since the DPD officers didn't so at the Texas theater and his calls in the middle of the night (Sat.) to the DPD was his way of trying to forestall the transfer Oswald. If Oswald had been transferred in the middle of
the night, as had been previously recommended, then obviously that would let Ruby off the hook (of orders to him to kill Oswald).

Ruby didn't want to shoot Oswald, and that raises the question: who ordered him to do so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. you don't have a shred of proof of any of this, dude...
or you'd provide it. this is just more of your bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. You might enjoy this article on the CIA, Oswald, and JFK assassination
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. If you're trying to claim or imply that Oswald was CIA...
you might want to consider this segment from your own source, dude:

After all these years, it remains unclear whether Oswald was an agent of the CIA or of any other intelligence agency


Let us know when you uncover some evidence that doesn't actually undermine your claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I know what it says. I read it and decided you might profit from it.
BTW - Most researchers believe that HARVEY Oswald was:

1. FBI Informant

2. ONI operative

3. At times, on-loan to the CIA (as when he went to Cuba and the former Soviet Union)

4. PATSY - just like Osama bin Laden

5. Murdered by Jack Ruby who was ordered to make the hit
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:59 PM
Original message
"Most researchers "
Edited on Sat May-16-09 09:59 PM by SDuderstadt
Please prove that, dude, otherwise it's just more of your usual bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. An introduction to the origin of the SBT (single bullet theory)
"There are actually several key points that make or break the WC's
claim of a lone assassin, but perhaps none shows it more clearly and
concisely than the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). The whole need for a
SBT came about because the WC was limited to three shots by the
assassin due to the time contraints offered by the Zapruder film.
Using this film it was concluded that the assassin would have had
roughly 5.6 seconds to fire at the motorcade and the cycling time of
the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) was 2.3 seconds by the most experienced
shooters, thus the maximum number of shots that could be fired were
three.

This is what both the FBI and SS reported in their reports, and
continue to report as they even scoff at the SBT as ridiculous.
Initially there were no problems with three shots though as the FBI
and SS said the first shot hit JFK in the back, the second hit JBC in
the back and the third hit JFK in the head. This was neat and concise
and worked for both of these organizations. The fly in the ointment
arose when a man by the name of James Tague came along however and
said he was wounded on the cheek by debris from a bullet hitting the
concrete pavement/curb near him a the Triple Underpass area. He was
standing there watching the motorcade. Hoover initially did what he
did with a lot of evidence in this case -- he IGNORED him!!! He would
not recognize him for many months, but finally this bullet had to be
addressed. Which one could have struck JFK or JBC and still travelled
that far and struck the pavement/curb near Tague? The WC came to the
scary conclusion none could, thus they had a problem. NOW they had to
address 7 wounds in two men with just two bullets!!

Enter the SBT scenario."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Chew on this article about Jack Ruby
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. "I am not resisting arrest" - that's what Oswald said when arrested at the Texas Theater
He knew what fate awaited him and at least in the theater would have had witnesses if the Dallas PD had killed him there. He also asked for a lawyer at that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. He also drew his revolver and tried to kill the officer who got to him first...
Edited on Sat May-16-09 10:39 PM by SDuderstadt
That sounds like prima facie evidence of someone trying to resist arrest. Does that sound like someone trying to avoid getting killed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. He made the statement after being handcuffed
granted a handcuffed suspect can still struggle - but I think Oswald made the statement to try and protect himself as it must have begun to dawn on him that he would be taking the fall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. If he was innocent, why did he try to kill the arresting officer??
Please answer that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I never said he was innocent,
I said he took the fall, that doesn't mean I think he was innocent. I have no doubt he was involved with the murder. I just don't believe he was the only one shooting at Kennedy that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. All the shots trace back to the sniper's nest...
are you saying there were two people in the nest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Where the shots came from depend on which witnesses you believe
and if you buy Specter's magic bullet story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. No, they depend on trajectory analysis...
maybe you should look at Dale Myer's recreation of Dealey Plaza based upon the Zapruder film. Physical evidence trumps witness testimony and, more importantly, most of the witness accounts actually concur with Myer's recreation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Again, it depends on whose recreation you choose to believe
and which foresnic pathologist's analysis of the autopsy report you choose to believe (if only a foresenic pathologist had actually done the autopsy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. The evidence needed is in the Zapruder film...
sorry. Watch the Zapruder film closely and you'll notice Connally reacting nearly instantly when Kennedy is hit in the back by the 2nd shot. If you notice where Connally is positioned relative to JFK (lower, to JFK's left and turned to his right - which is clearly seen in the Zapruder film and confirmed by Connally himself), any bullet that struck JFK where it did and exited where it did could only have gone on to hit Connally. If you claim it was a separate bullet that hit Connally, you'd have to explain how it didn't hit JFK first and you'd have to contradict the 80+ % of witnesses who heard three shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Connally was NOT hit by the same bullet. Z film proves it.
JBC always maintained that he was hit by a separate bullet. Mrs. Connally said so, too. The Z film proves it. How? Simple. After
JFK was struck in the back, by a bullet which the autopsists said did NOT penetrate more than about an inch or so into his body, JBC
can still be seen holding his stetson hat. That would have been impossible if JBC had been hit by the same bullet that struck JFK.

Don't they give you access to anything other than Warren Commission propaganda? Didn't anyone tell you that the WCommission was
formed in order to cover-up the crime? You know, like the 9/11 Commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Number 1, NHT....
offer some documentation of your goofy claims or it's just more of your typical bullshit. Even if, as you claim, both Connally and his wife maintain he was hit by a dofferent bullet, that isn't proof of anything and certainly isn't consistent with the physical evidence. Secondly, the autopsists didn't conclude that the bullet that hit JFK in the back only pentrated an inch. One of the doctors tried to probe the wound with his finger and then a soft probe, but was unable to penetrate it more than an inch, which proves basically that he was unable to penetrate it more than an inch, not that was the total depth of the wound. In fact, the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations addressed the issue and here's what they had to say about it:

(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedys neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation.



Hmmm, choices. Should I believe the Forensic Pathology Panel or some guy named "NowHearThis" whose biggest claim to fame is posting goofy theories on a discussion board? I think I'll go with the forensic pathologists.

Your claim that Connally could not have been wounded by the same bullet as JFK and still be seen holding on to his stetson is easily disproven by other accounts of wounds even more severe in which case the person wounded was, nonetheless, able to grasp things despite the severity of their wounds as demonstrated below:

At last I was close enough to pull the pin on my last grenade. And as I drew my arm back, all in a flash of light and dark I saw him, that faceless German, like a strip of motion picture film running through a projector that's gone berserk. One instant he was standing waist-high in the bunker, and the next he was aiming a rifle grenade at my face from a range of ten yards. And even as I cocked my arm to throw, he fired and his rifle grenade smashed into my right elbow and exploded and all but tore my arm off. I looked at it, stunned and unbelieving. It dangled there by a few bloody shreds of tissue, my grenade still clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore . . ."
Daniel K. Inouye with Lawrence Elliott, Journey to Washington, Prentice-Hall 1967, pp. 151-152.


More importantly (and something you either were too lazy to research properly or were deceitful enough to omit) is that Mrs. Connally stated that her husband held his stetson all the way to Parkland:

Nellie: John Connally was trying to see him. He looked to
his right and he couldn't see the president. He knew it was a
gun shot. I just heard a loud noise. And John was afraid they
were shooting at the president and he turned to see if he
could see him on this other side and he couldn't see him
there and in the process of turning back John was shot.
Second shot.

TM: Second shot. You've never wavered from this, by the
way?

Nellie: I never will. I pulled him down in my lap because I
didn't want him to hurt him anymore. I didn't want him to
shoot at him anymore. And while I had him in my lap there
was another shot. And my reaction to that was matter all
over the car, blew up, we were in front of the Kennedys, it
blew up all over us. Third shot.

TM: And you're covering your husband at this time.

Nellie: And he also, he has... he has... his hat in his hand.
He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his
hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down and
he was holding that hat up against him. He closed up that
wound that would've killed him before we got to the hospital.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001013092436/http://www.te...



If you look closely enough, you'll also see that Mrs. Connally states that her husband was hit by the SECOND shot, which thoroughly undermines your claim that both she and Gov. Connally thought he was hit by a different bullet. We know that because Connally stated that, after the first bullet missed, he turned to his right in his seat and looked over his shoulder because that's where he heard the shot come from. Since Connally thought that the first bullet missed (which it did) and he knows that the third shot was the fatal headshot to JFK, he would've have to conclude that both he and JFK were hit by the same shot. More importantly, perhaps you could tell us if they were hit by two different bullets and, given the relative positions of JFK and Connally, how could any shot have hit Connally where it did and NOT gone through JFK first?

As I have stated previously, some classes in critical thinking could pre-empt most of your goofy claims. I am sure your local community college offers them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Do you actually believe what you wrote?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. Yeah, NHT....
now, try to refute it instead of playing silly games. Actual facts and citations, please, not more of your goofy, naked assertions. You claimed both Connally and his wife maintained that he was hit by a different bullet. Prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. An honest question to those who believe Oswald was a lone nut...
I am new to the JFK Assassination scene, but that quote from Jack Ruby just jumps out at me like a lightning bolt.

Jack Ruby: "The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motive. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive, to put me in the position I am in, will never let the true facts come above board for the world." - Commentator: "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?" - Jack Ruby: "Yes!"

Why would Ruby say this? I understand he had a deathbed confession but if what he is saying above is true, wouldn't a more reasonable explanation be the confession was to protect others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Not really...
if he was "trying to protect others", why would he make the initial statement at all?

Over the years, conspiracists have quote-mined much of what Ruby said. The problem for them, of course, is that Ruby made lots of cryptic statements. No evidence ever emerged that proved any of what he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Ruby, etc
If evidence had emerged to corroborate what he said, then the lid would have blown off the entire case. Perhaps he said it because he had some shred of decency in him and wanted to at least hint at the truth? It is also my understanding that even with the JFK Act of 1992, and the subsequent release of documents through 1998, there are still well over 1 million documents pertaining to the case being withheld.

"As for the number of unreleased files, on September 29, 1998, NBC News reported that "millions" of pages would remain secret until 2017. The respected Washington watchdog group OMB Watch issued a report in 2000 quoting someone who worked with the Review Board as saying that "well over a million CIA records" alone related to JFK's assassination remain outstanding. The CIA--stated in a court filing last year that they reserved the right to withhold their unreleased JFK assassination files even beyond the 2017 deadline. It's unclear how that CIA assertion would affect copies of any of those--or related--files that might be held by other agencies, like the FBI."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Many_...

If these documents have been released since, I have not been able to find something to indicate that.

You are always saying "where is the proof?" We have a deathbed confession from E. howard hunt according to his son. We have the case of marita lorenz in the mid 80s implicating the CIA. I admit, i need to do a lot more research but these would appear to be "smoking guns" if i was looking for one. And why are "millions" of pages still being withheld? Investigating the United States intelligence apparatus is different than investing Tom and Jane Smith down the street. They always have the ability to use "national security" as a reason to withhold informaton. Now I will admit, I am leaning toward the CIA involvement aspect while looking at the case, but I have just started looking into this within the past month.

I realize this may be a bit involved, and I will understand if you would rather not take the time to respond, but I saw an earlier post of yours that said you have flip flopped 3 times on your opinion of the case.

May I ask what made you change your mind each time? And also, what finally "sealed the deal" so to speak to sway you into thinking Oswald is/was the lone gunman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. The physical evidence...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. physical evidence
What has changed with respect to the physical evidence since you last believed it was more than just oswald?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. I'm not interested in getting into a long...
drawn out back and forth with you on this.

No offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. none taken
...i do appreciate your counterweight to much of what I see posted on this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Italian Army tests
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jessenio Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #60
78. Wow. Great video k-robjoe
It took the colonel 17 seconds to hit the target twice in three attempts, and the bullet in a separate test on two pieces of meat was severely destroyed, in contrast with the quasi-pristine magic bullet. This video reinforces my view that Oswald was a patsy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Look at the video again and ask yourself...
what the impact of the backstop was on the bullet. You also are completely omitting all the other tests in which the shooter got off all the shots easily.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. "the impact of the backstop"
The blue thing that stops the bullet? It looks pretty soft. Doesnt look like it has any bones in it. The bullet didnt hit any bones it seems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Dude...
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 10:52 AM by SDuderstadt
Look at the video very closely. Why would you use something "pretty soft" as a backstop? Wouldn't the bullet just go right through it?

Hint: It's a bullet-proof vest. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. "Its a bullet-proof vest"
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 12:25 PM by k-robjoe
It has the shape of a bullet-proof vest. That is true.

And of course, if it is the case that it is the impact with this back-stop that smashes up the bullet, then the test is useless.

But it would also mean that these guys from the italian army are complete fools, and they make videos to show the whole world that this is the case.

I googled to see if anyone else has commented on it, but couldnt find anything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. "it would also mean that these guys from the italian army are complete fools"
Bingo. Why would a "backstop" have armholes?

What do you think would cause the most damage to a bullet? Something it passes through at high velocity or something that stops it? Why don't you ask yourself these kinds of questions before you post this kind of nonsense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. Most damage
What would cause most damage to a bullet, something it passes through, or something that stops it?

It depends, doesnt it. If you had another peace of meat there ( or two more ) it would also stop it right. Or do you think it would just keep going forever?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. Jesus, this is hopeless...
Did you read the words "high velocity"? Trying to reason with you is pointless. I fucking give up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. "High velocity"
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 05:55 PM by k-robjoe
If the back-stop is pretty soft, and it still stops the bullet, then of course the velocity is no longer so high.

Its like you can have a bullet go through a car door, and then you dig it out of the car seat. The car seat stopped it.

So what did most damage to it? The car door, or the car seat?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Dude...
it's a bullet-proof vest. You should seriously consider taking some physics classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Looks like youre right
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 06:50 PM by k-robjoe
I did some googling, and it looks like youre right.

It seems like the army people doing the test were not making the point that the videoclip gave the impression that they were making.

"Lt. Col. Riso : As we can see, after having gone through the targets of meat, the bullets jacket was impacted and when it was recovered, it was flat and notably deformed. When the bullet exited the meat, it had enough speed to cause this deformity. The magic bullet could not have hit two men
and remain intact as it states in the (Warren Comission)report. "

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/jf-kenn...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Reading a previous thread on the evidence I found this quote:
"I've changed my mind about the "conspiracy" no less than 4 times now since 1963. And you're presuming way too much if you think I'm arguing that there was no conspiracy. What I'm arguing is that the Zapruder film shows a shot from the rear, and no head wound on the back like the sketch TruthIsAll (sic) keeps posting. What I said about the autopsy results was that they agree with the Zapruder film, which contradicts your assertion that "all the evidence points to a coverup." This evidence certainly doesn't!"

Even if we both agree that Oswald was the lone gunman, are you saying you entertain the notion that there was still a conspiracy in place to kill JFK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. No...
I am saying that I am not interested in a long, drawn out back and forth with you on this. You never seemed to understand that under all your previous user names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. you must be mistaken..
previous user names? But point taken, I just find it interesting someone can change their mind that many times and then finally "settle" so firmly into one camp.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. I'm hardly mistaken...
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 11:07 AM by SDuderstadt
you never seem to get the message, no matter what "persona" you've adopted and your tactics never change. Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. i really have no idea who you think i am..
but my previous post about respecting your views is losing some of it's meaning with your apparent paranoia. I can assure you I am not whoever you accuse me of being. Just wanted to state that for the record. good day
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. "your apparent paranoia"
Too funny. What a hoot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #61
67. Could you please link me to where...
I supposedly said this?

I'm betting you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. I stand corrected
The person who said that was someone named William Seger in this thread:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/dubo...

Post #65. You both have avatars of Teddy, and both take the same hardline approach to doubters of the official story -- stressing the physical evidence. I apologize for mixing you up with Mr. Seger
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Inasmuch as...
I didn't have a single post in that OP, which is from 2003, and any number of people have EMK as their avatar, I'm not buying your bullshit story. You're going to have to do better to cover your tracks, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mortimer Ichabod Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. cover what tracks?
I just showed you where I mistakenly quoted someone else thinking it was you. It was a mistake. I have no idea what you keep hinting at, and I stand by the paranoia posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. And, I stand by what I said about...
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 01:03 PM by SDuderstadt
not being interested in a long, drawn out back and forth with you, yet you baited me with a "quote" from a thread I didn't even participate in. I'm not buying your bullshit that it was an honest mistake.

You should have quit while you were ahead, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IScreamSundays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. touche!
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. We'll add the word "touche"...
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 08:45 PM by SDuderstadt
to the list of many other words you don't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IScreamSundays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. I just found it humorous that you are accusing our
Edited on Fri Nov-05-10 03:32 PM by IScreamSundays
good friend NHT of posting under different handles; And he busts you for being Seger. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I never, ever accused him of being...
Edited on Fri Nov-05-10 03:54 PM by SDuderstadt
NHT. Please show me where I did.

It's even funnier that anyone could "confuse" the user name "sduderstadt" with "William Seger" and, more importantly, "quote" me from a 7 year old thread in which I never, ever participated.

People usually exclaim "touche" when they have prevailed, not when they are forced to admit an egregious "error".

No wonder you guys haven't gotten anywhere in forty-seven years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IScreamSundays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. touche
touch (to̵̅o̅ s̸hā′ ;)
interjection
FENCING touched: said in acknowledging that one's opponent has scored a point by a touch
used to acknowledge a successful point in debating or a witty retort
Origin: Fr, pp.: see touch
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. How is having to admit an egregious error...
scoring a debate point?

Are you this clueless in real life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Touche
Good one
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. Conspiracists are such a hoot...
no matter how badly they get their asses kicked, they, nonetheless, believe they deserve a victory lap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. I remember not long after the assassination, Oswald's mother claimed he was a government agent
I can remember that it was reported with a "what a nut tone" . I've come to think she wasn't so nutty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You should look into Oswald's mother.
Grendel's mother comes to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Why , was she a MILF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. You are thinking of Zemeckis' version
I'm referring to the original.

You really should look into what Lee Harvey's mom put him through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
able1 Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
50. What is an MILF? EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. "mother I'd like to fuck" is what it stands for - a good looking woman who's also a mother
Zemeckis had Angelina Jolie play Grendel's mother. That's not the original vision of the part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
able1 Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Okey dokey. Now I know. Thank you. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deen Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. Great JFK conpiracy video: JFK II
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Thanks --- good to have. Being pretty familiar with this info . . ..
I must have scanned thru it rather quickly at one point and didn't realize that they were using it to somewhat strike at the PETER JENNINGS program a while ago --- which was wildly and outrageously untruthful.

But -- Peter Jennings, of course, died of cancer not too long afterwards --- !!!!

Another questionable death connected to this coup on JFK ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. peter jennings
died of lung cancer.... after being a smoker for a long time, quitting for a while, then resuming after 911.

Geez lung cancer in a smoker that NEVER happens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes . . . smokers do get cancer . . ..
but JFK connections seem to bring on more cancers --

Who knows? I haven't seen an autopsy report that's for sure . . .

This particular outing by Jennings was very odd.
You have to be brain dead to believe the official JFK myth ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. have you provided
the links I requested in the other thread?

Also Peter Jennings saying on the air that he had lung cancer due to years of smoking isn't enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What are you talking about . . .???
Have you read the China Syndrome --?

Have you, yourself, done any researh on the question ---?

What we know is that many people these days say things that they don't mean . . .

Like CNN reporters on film saying that there are "NO PLANES that hit the Pentagon" .. .

and then, hours, later, suggesting that they were hallucinating at the Pentagon --- !!!

As far as providing information at your demand --- dream on --

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. in other words
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 06:04 PM by sabbat hunter
no you have not provided any links.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-03-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. And . . .geez . . . we haven't seen "cancer" used by the CIA to kill people . . . !!!
Right --- they simply stick with waterboarding and pulling your fingernails out ---
but they don't actually murder anyone?

Catch up ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. How in the world is Peter Jennings' death even remotely suspicious,...
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 12:54 AM by SDuderstadt
let alone connected to JFK's assassination?

This is just more hit-and-run bullshit from D&P, with no tangible evidence other than supposition and speculation, accompanied by the usual empty promises of "I'll post (insert fictitious, non-existent 'evidence' here) later", which, of course, never materializes.

Anyone who thinks Fletcher Prouty is a reliable source needs serious therapy.


D&P, if you have ANY evidence for your absurd claim that Oswald was a CIA employee, please provide it. Put up or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-03-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. The program in question is inane ---
and the fact that Peter Jennings was even connected with anything so ridiculous is suspicious.

And, oh yeah . . . Fletcher Prouty is just a meaningless intelligence figure ---

David Ferrie worked on research to transmit cancer to humans --
it was a long term project of his --- of high interest to the CIA.

Oswald was, of course, trained by the CIA to spy in Russia ---
that's in a memo by the Director of the CIA to the secret Service.

Additionally, the Tunnheim Panel conclued that . . .
"Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments and probably also for the CIA."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
75. "Another questionable death connected to this coup on JFK"
So, let me make sure I get this straight: D&P claims Jennings' death decades later from lung cancer is "questionable" because he produced a show that "defended" the "official story"? Why, on earth, would the "perps" eliminate someone who was on their side? Do JFK assassination conspiracists exercise any critical thinking skills whatsoever?

Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
18. Paraffin Tests

Firearms Investigation, Identification, and Evidence, Hatcher, Jury, and Weller (The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 1957), page 435:

They have found the most alarming inconsistencies. For instance, a woman who could not remember ever having had a firearm in her hand in her life gave positive tests for both hands. Further, men who fired guns all day were sometimes able to remove most of the evidence of this firing by an ordinary washing of their hands with the usual soap provided in wash rooms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Oswald's Paraffin Tests
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-03-08 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
24. Warren Commion Report: "Paraffin test on Oswald was completely unreliable" ----
NOTE TESTS OF OSWALD'S CHEEKS SHOWED THAT HE HAD NOT FIRED A RIFLE.


and WC report . . "Paraffin test on Oswald was completely unreliable."


and anything else is disinformation ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #24
43. Why is the paraffin test no longer used?

Do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
49. "Truther logic"...
the paraffin test performed on Oswald was unreliable, thus it proves he didn't fire a rifle that day.

Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
48. When firing bolt action rifle
you don't have the same unburnt powder expulsion you do from a pistol or semi-automatic rifle. This has been tested since and confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bignerd Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #48
74. Please provide sources to your "tests"
thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC