Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Former FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy

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
 
Yeahyeah Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:19 AM
Original message
Former FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy
Edited on Wed Aug-18-10 09:56 AM by Yeahyeah
http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-don-adams-president-k...

Suzanne Stratford Fox 8 News Reporter
6:07 AM EDT, August 18, 2010

AKRON, Ohio - A retired FBI Agent from Summit County is making claims regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that go beyond conspiracy theories.

Don Adams speaks clearly and concisely when describing the events of November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was killed, and he doesn't waiver from his position that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

"It is a fact," says Adams, and he says he has the FBI documents to prove it.

At his home in Akron, Ohio, Adams is surrounded by thousands of reports and records from the National Archives and Records Administration. His name appears on many of the papers, but he says other reports have been doctored, or are missing, "Everything I had done is gone. It's all gone," Adams said...




http://adamsjfk.com /

Almost 50 years have gone by since President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. Yet, we are no closer to solving this murder today than we were back then.


We are beginning to elicit the truth, but that truth is being revealed in bits and pieces:


We KNOW that there were warnings that the President would be killed...


WTAM Interviews with Mike Trivisonno and Don Adams on JFK


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5








7-29-10 Mike Trivisonno Hour 3
Former FBI Agent Don Adams in discussing the JFK assassination.

LISTEN NOW | DOWNLOAD TO YOUR COMPUTER
7-29-10 Mike Trivisonno Hour 2
Inequality in restrooms and showers. Former FBI Agent Don Adams is back in studio to discuss JFK's assassination.

http://www.wtam.com/pages/triv/ondemand.html
TRIV ON DEMAND - The BIG One - WTAM 1100 7-28-10 Mike
Refresh | +8 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. I always suspected Weenie did it.
Edited on Wed Aug-18-10 09:22 AM by Ian David



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think that it was Col. Mustard in the Book Depository,
with a candlestick...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I don't want to be a scold but..

to those of us who remember him, and still feel, in the waning days of November, the melancholy...It can never be "funny".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
336. I see the same old junkyard dogs and shills are all over this one
Edited on Wed Sep-29-10 01:59 PM by ooglymoogly
as they always are. These facts must always be made a joke and must never be taken seriously;

FOR THEY ARE ABOUT THE DAY DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY WAS SHOT DEAD.

To protect big banking, Wall st. and their intelligence armies.

Funny, how in spite of these watchdogs and clowns, the public still gets it by an overwhelming majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Don Adams says Oswald "Missed him by that much."
Edited on Wed Aug-18-10 09:24 AM by Ian David



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Oh, +1! That is a hoot!
Edited on Wed Aug-18-10 09:33 AM by Dhalgren
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. Oswald was CIA and was downstairs in the building when the shots were
fired -- however, NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS A "HOOT" --

And sad to see that anyone here thinks a coup on our "people's" government

is something to be treated as a joke!

Pitiful -- !!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
337. Nice tag team. Hey you might fool a few. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. - - -
: )

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
132. I don't think so...
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. What?
Your kidding, right...... :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. ~
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. Don Adams?
Shouldn't he be using the Cone of Silence for this kind of information?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
8. No shit...
...ya mean there really, really was no "magic bullet" and our government lied? Imagine that...

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
218. Media missed this story, too.
Kurt Nimmo shames Corporate McPravda:

JFK Assassination Cover-Up Blown Sky High

by Kurt Nimmo
Thursday, August 26, 2010

It is a story the corporate media, with the notable exception of one lone Fox News affiliate, refuses to report. A former FBI agent, Don Adams, has compelling evidence Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate president John F. Kennedy. Adams was assigned to an FBI office in Thomasville, Georgia, on November 22, 1963. Adams was responsible for investigating Joseph Adams Milteer, described as a radical with connections to the States Rights Party and KKK. Milteer, according to Adams, was involved in Kennedys assassination.

As revealed by the Church Committee in the mid-70s and according to internal FBI documents the agency controlled the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists beginning in the 1960s. More recently, it was revealed that racist radio talk show host Hal Turner operated as a national security intelligence asset for the FBI, thus demonstrating the agency still has its hooks in the lunatic fringe movement.

The racist Milteer was reportedly one of most violent men in the country, Adams told Fox 8 News. Years later, Adams discovered that Milteer had threatened to kill Kennedy on November 9, 1963, and the FBI had lied about Milteers whereabouts. In order to make his case, Adams played an audio recording of Milteer for Fox News. In the recording, Milteer tells an informant the best way to get the president is from an office building with a high powered rifle. Asked if he was sincere about a plot of kill Kennedy, Milteer responded: Oh yes. Its in the works.

Despite the threat and possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the president, the FBI and Secret Service allowed Kennedy to travel to Dallas. should have stopped the President from traveling instantly, said Adams.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theredmountainpost.com/jfk-assassination-cov... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. So the FBI used criminals to do their dirty work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. I too do not think this is funny and I will never ever be convinced that
John Connley and the republicans were not somehow involved. I will say it over and over. Else why when Martha was going to "spill the beans", she was kidnapped, held in a motel for weeks and then mysteriously was said to have an advanced case of cancer and passed away....For those of you not old enough to have been there, the climate of mistrust of the republicans was overwhelming. Person after person insisted that some of the shots came from the area, OF THE GRASSY KNOLL. They said no amount of government urging would make them change their mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Thank you. Those of us who remember find the assassination of JFK
about as funny as AIDS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CrunchMaster Donating Member (308 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. it's usually Republicans who laugh off the JFK assassination...
and buy the official theory hook line and sinker.... I would wager 90% of Democrats, liberals and progressives would be onboard for a real investigation of who shot JFK...(answer : probably fascists elements of the far right)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I know...
That's why I'm wondering about the "laughing" here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-21-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Ted Kennedy was a Republican? /nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
338. No, it was JFK and FDR who were Republican.
Edited on Wed Sep-29-10 02:07 PM by ooglymoogly
Ferr Sherrr doood. Try reading more than the pug clap trap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Exactly ... and thank you!!
Almost 50 years have gone by since President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. Yet, we are no closer to solving this murder today than we were back then.

and this comment from the thread is also uninformed and misleading --

many private investigators have revealed the essential details of the JFK coup on our

"people's" government --

In fact, many in DU the evening of the assassination fairly well knew the names of those involved.

And, the Tunnheim Commission confirmed that --

"OSWALD WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CIA WORKING ON HIGH LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS AND PROBABLY

ALSO FOR THE FBI."

Despite many continuing efforts to bring the truth forward, the coverup remains strong --

and the power to keep the cover up going is stronger than our power to overturn it --

so far ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
339. +more than I can count nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
13. Read DeLillo's Libra
Edited on Wed Aug-18-10 10:00 AM by The Wizard
a "fictional" account of the assassination and you'll find the name Milteer.
What we have/had was/is the American version of the War of the Roses.
Instead of the Lancasters and the Yorks we have the Bushes and Kennedys. As we know, the Bush cartel prevailed.
Our government has been taken over by a crime family that would make the Genovese look like Mr. Rogers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
413. 'Our gov.t has been taken over by a crime family that would make the Genovese look like Mr. Rogers.'
Well said. The Mafia never killed a million innocent people for their oil. The War of the Roses analogy is apt, except the Kennedys -- like all Liberals -- tried to play fair and follow the Golden Rule. The other side -- representing the Money Party, the War Party, the Establishment Aristocracy -- has done whatever it takes to win. The results of their victory are all around -- from permanent war to a penured middle class.



Here's a transcript of the text:



TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #



Gee. Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Could it be, he was on official business? I suspect he was on Secret Government business. After all, his eldest son bragged during his Texas Air National Guard and Harvard grad school days that his daddy was CIA.

Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." Some strange coincidence there, wot?



Here's a transcript of the above:



Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



The paper trail sheds some light on the War. Thank you for the heads-up on DeLillo's book, The Wizard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #413
414. Octafish "Logic"
George Bush is a very uncommon name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #414
416. Thanks for re-''minding'' me, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #413
415. The "War of the Roses" analogy is only "apt" if one knows zip about English history, for starters.
For seconders:

"The paper trail sheds some light on the War"

One assumes here you mean the Vietnam war, which is odd, because that was a war basically started, and vigorously prosecuted by, none other than President John F. Kennedy. Again: when JFK arrived in office on Jan. 20, 1961, there were roughly 600 American military "advisers" whose rules of engagement were so limited that they weren't even allowed to leave their base compounds under any but the most extreme of circumstances. Those orders came straight from the top - right from the Oval Office of Dwight David Eisenhower.

The day JFK died, there were nearly 20,000 combat troops in Vietnam, already engaged in fighting right alongside the ARVN. Every single one of them were dispatched to South Vietnam on Kennedy's explicit orders.

Their Air Force colleagues, meantime, had received their first batch of a charming little combination herbicide/defoliant named after the color of the stripes on the barrels in which it was shipped in. This, too, was carried out on President Kennedy's explicit orders:

"Individual spray runs had to be approved by President John F. Kennedy until November 1962 when Kennedy gave the authority to approve most spray runs to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam and the US Ambassador to South Viet Nam."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand

Indeed, here is President Kennedy speaking in Fort Worth in his last delivered remarks before his tragic death at the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald:

"The Iroquois helicopter from Fort Worth is a mainstay in our fight against the guerrillas in South Viet-Nam. The transportation of crews between our missile sites is done in planes produced here in Fort Worth. So wherever the confrontation may occur, and in the last 3 years it has occurred on at least three occasions, in Laos, Berlin, and Cuba, and it will again wherever it occurs, the products of Fort Worth and the men of Fort Worth provide us with a sense of security....

....In all these ways, the success of our national defense depends upon this city in the western United States, 10,000 miles from Viet-Nam, 5,000 or 6,000 miles from Berlin, thousands of miles from trouble spots in Latin America and Africa or the Middle East. And yet Fort Worth and what it does and what it produces participates in all these great historic events. Texas, as a whole, and Fort Worth bear particular responsibility for this national defense effort, for military procurement in this State totals nearly $1 billion, fifth highest among all the States of the Union. There are more military personnel on active duty in this State than any in the Nation, save one and it is not Massachusetts any in the Nation save one, with a combined military-civilian defense payroll of well over a billion dollars. I don't recite these for any partisan purpose. They are the result of American determination to be second to none, and as a result of the effort which this country has made in the last 3 years we are second to none....

....In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counterinsurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent...."
**

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ftworth.htm

(Side comment: some real "enemy" of the "military-industrial complex he was, eh? :eyes:)

The "paper trail" - not to mention the publicly-delivered speeches trail - on "the War" is, indeed, massive, and it all leads back to one conclusion: President Kennedy decisively escalated American involvement in the conflict in Southeast Asia, and till the day he died was determined to continue doing so.

Whether he might have come to a different conclusion about it on November 23rd or anytime thereafter is irrelevant: on November 22nd, 1963, his government was waging war in South Vietnam, and on his explicit orders.

And what, in all that massive "paper trail" that points to President Kennedy's decisive role in inaugurating the major American role in that conflict, do those who continue to clamor that it would have gone otherwise have in the way of "proof" to the contrary?

Here's what: one vaguely worded National Security Action Memo that approved a military recommendation that 1,000 American military personnel by the end of the year, and orders that the news not be made public. And why? The vast majority of credible historians maintain that the Memorandum was a bluff, an attempt to get the South Vietnamese government - which had recently undergone a coup with Kennedy's tacit approval - to stay in line with U.S. policy directives, or a shifting of mission priorities, as the U.S. Air Force & Navy leadership had been insisting that what was called for in South Vietnam was less troops on the ground and more bombers and fighters in the air, and combat ships offshore. Still others insist it was simply a routine reshuffling and rotation of troops, having no larger policy implications whatsoever.

One thing NSAM 263 does not do is establish that Kennedy would have "brought the boys home" in any way, manner, shape or form, had he lived.***

The bottom line is that Vietnam was JFK's war till the day he died. You can blame Johnson and Nixon for anything after that, all the way up to March of 1973. And there is not a shred of definitive, credible evidence that JFK wanted it any other way.


*All emphases added

**Ditto

***See the complete text of NSAM 263 - with "draft" bullet points below the body of the complete memo - here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #415
417. Interesting. I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography,'' apocalypsehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #417
418. Poor Octafish...
Does it occur to you not to draw attention to your failed 47 year campaign to find JFK's "real killer"? Serious question: have you read Bugliosi's book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #417
419. Links to to two old DU posts of yours & one of mine does not a refutation of what I wrote above make
Instead of attempting to change the subject, address the historical evidence put to you in the reply above.

"I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography,'"

I am going to deal with this phony issue in depth once and only once in my interactions with you on DU, Octafish, and from here on out whenever you attempt to change the subject from whatever facts I've presented that you cannot refute by bringing up this old diversionary chestnut, I'm simply going to post a link back to this reply.

A "bibliography" is nothing more than a list of books compiled and/or collected for a specific purpose, among other things that word can refer to. Here's a helpful definition for you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bibliography

It is, indeed, true that I have a large number of books in my personal library that address the life, times, personal and political career of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - everything from general biographies of his life to topic-specific volumes regarding actions of his administration on everything from the Cuban Missile Crises to its dealings with South America. I also have in my collection a sizable body of conspiracy theory works, everything from Jim Marrs "Conspiracy: the Plot that killed Kennedy" to a compilation of conspiracy-related articles compiled and edited by James Fetzer titled "Murder in Dealey Plaza."

But that is not this issue. This is:

1. When people post a reply to you containing any number of facts that refute a position you hold, Octafish, the proper way to reply to them is not to refer to some old post of theirs that is irrelevant to the post at hand, but to address those facts.

2. You, I, and every one else are well aware that my sarcastic reply to you in that singular post was, indeed, a rhetorical reference to the fact that I am not only much better read than you are on this subject, but, also, the content of what I have read is largely from legitimate, credible sources, as opposed to conspiracy-theory rubbish peddled by con-men (in many instances) and/or the genuinely misinformed (in many others). This means that not only the quantity of what I've read is much greater than yours, but the quality is infinitely more intellectually honest and imbued with scholarly rigor.

3. This repeated returning to "I'm still waiting for your bibliography" routine is simply a way to avoid dealing with facts as presented to you, and a pretense, in any event: were you genuinely interested in having me painstakingly put aside an afternoon and compile a list of books I have read, many of which are in my personal library, you would have long ago messaged me privately and said, "you know, apocalypsehow, I know you were being sarcastic in that post about the bibliography, but in all sincerity I would appreciate seeing a list of books you've read and/or recommend on the subject. I would genuinely appreciate it if you would do this for me, thanks!" But that's not what you're interested in: you are interested in scoring some kind of public "debate" points by pretending I have failed to deliver on some "promise" you think I have made and you are due. Of this, you are well aware, but you persist in returning to this tactic anyway because it is much, much, much easier than attempting to refute my solid facts and evidence.

4. Further, you and I both know that if I, indeed, did put aside 5-6 hours of my time, and compile in writing such a list and then forward it on to you via private message or publicly, the result would not be that Octafish would drop his keyboard, run right out to the local library or bookstore and start prowling the stacks looking for reading material: no, the result would be an immediate counter-reply dismissing the works as part of the "cover-up"; an accompanying questioning if not outright smearing of the reputations of the authors of those books in an attempt to discredit them; or a reply simply ignoring the entire thing in lieu of posting an eye-numbing number of links - most of them to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, or your own previous posts - supposedly "proving" that it doesn't matter how many actual scholarly works are written that do not square with your view of the events of Nov. 22, 1963, you have on your side of the "debate"....an eye-numbing number of links to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, and your own previous posts.

And my time would have truly and completely been wasted.

5. Taken together, everything I have laid out in points 1-4 lay the groundwork for my reply to you regarding this constant diversionary "request" you continue to make every time I definitively refute an assertion you have made in a post on this forum. That reply is as follows:

(a) As to the repeated public, i.e., in a post/reply on DU, business about "I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography'," you can stop waiting: I am not going to burn even ten seconds of my time working up such a list for you, period. Normally, this alone would be sufficient to see the matter dropped, and never brought up again as some kind of "debate" point in future interactions between us. But that's about the only card you got to play in our occasional discussions back and forth regarding this matter on DU, since all the actual, verifiable, credible facts are on my side, not yours. Thus, the card will always be played, because it is human nature to grasp at even weak cards if it is perceived that it keeps us at the table and in the game.

(b) But even that card is now going to either have to be played or flushed, because I'm calling your bluff. This is my offer: if you compose a polite, respectful private message to me, Octafish, and in that message you nicely ask me to go ahead and work up that Bibliography for you, even though we both know the original "offer" was an off-the-cuff instance of internet obiter dictum, I'll be delighted to block off an evening to do so, and get it right to you. You can then do with it what you want: follow its recommendations, ignore it, post an OP here ridiculing or praising it, whatever you want.

And then the (phony to begin with) issue will have been laid to rest, and you can get on with the business of refuting my facts, as opposed to dredging up old posts with no relevance to those said facts.

Which is why my PM box will remain empty, I reckon: you don't want to discuss the facts. You want to discuss everything but.

In any event, you have my (final) word on this diversionary matter you continue to bring to our attention. Any further references to it will simply find a link posted in reply for those interested to follow back to this post, and the explanation contained therein above.

Issue resolved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
15. It invariably ends like this
"The 80-year-old is currently putting the papers into a book and he has also produced a documentary style DVD, which is being sold on his website."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidkc Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I guess Bugliosi and Posner have no credibility, since they sold books
?

And I guess Fox made up the part about the audio-tape where Milteer saying a plot is in the works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Bugliosi and Posner have no credibility -- that's true . . ..
but because they have presented not evidence but misinformation --

and especially in Bug's case, mainly an attack on other private investigators

who have produced evidence he doesn't like and which is in disagreement with

his ill-found conclusions.

Fox wasn't the first to present the audio-tape of Milteer and Sullivan -- it was

the Discovery Channel which presented the British documentary "The Men Who Killed

Kennedy" -- and the tape included Milteer's discussion of the original plans to kill

JFK in Miami -- but, needless to say, same concept of "patsy" and other patterns were

used in Dallas. You might also have noticed that Milteer seems to be present among

the crowds welcoming JFK that sad day? Your library probably has High Treason I and II --

think it's "I" which has the photo -- your library probably has these books.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
340. On the day he published his laughable book on the murder of JFK
he lost all credibility. He thinks since he gained creds on the forgone conviction of Manson and the good read "Helter Skelter; He can squander that capital and say anything and it will stick. He handily dispels the crackpot conspiracy theories with the trick of a breathless countdown, but fails to see; That the real conspiracy theory is that of the government; Is all too obvious and has been verified too many times to count. For instance, The dismissal or waving off the secret service at Dallas Airport from the footsteps at the back of the Limo in the direct line of fire, being too persuasive to dismiss; And yet not covered. This book is his Waterloo. His book should have been called "Distorting History". The inconvenient truths with no possible argument, he just left out, and concentrated on the ridiculous, the far out and the easy, some he just did not get. I was so furious with this idiots "treatise", even without finishing it, I took it back and got my money back. This book is meant for idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #340
341. Yet you saw footage of the supposed waving off....
of the SS. Hmmm. Don't you think the "perps" would have made sure that wasn't filmed? Beyond that, have you looked for any alternative explanations? Why does that one SS agent have a broad smile on his face? Here's the reality: the agent in question was actually assigned to guard AF One. His sheepish grin is because he was caught trying to go on the motorcade instead.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #341
343. what a bunch of trumped up garbage. Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

I looked at this film in detail and saw no such imaginings.


The guy shrugged three times each more dumbfounded, as to the why for the obvious question on the secret service mans face, for leaving the customary guard posts built into the limousine at the rear to provide vital protection to the President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

Look again for yourself if your righteous propaganda holds up. There are places on the back of the limousine where ss are meant to be for even the barest protection of an open limousine. Duh indeed

The next lame excuse....So AF1 is more important than the president? As if there are not enough SS to do both many times over. Duh indeed.

And the next even lamer excuse. Why would they allow filming of the goings on....That is so stupid it does not even deserve a comment. Gee why are there films of everything that happened that day; Beyond everyone having a camera, there were reporters all over the place, with telescopic paraphernalia to film anything. Films of this president were gold. Duh indeed.

Do you take us for idiots that we would swallow such propagandist claptrap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #343
344. I'm going to ask you politely one time...
Edited on Wed Sep-29-10 04:13 PM by SDuderstadt
to quit using the term "propagandist". If you think smearing me as such helps you win the "debate", you are sadly mistaken.

Secondly, my point is that the agent in question was assigned to guard AF One to begin with. Simple question: if the agent had initially been assigned to the motorcade, then why didn't he come forward and say, "I was supposed to be on the Presidential Limo and was inexplicably pulled off and that's why JFk died"? More importantly, a large number of JFK assassination conspiracists claim JFK was also shot from the front. If that is, in fact, true, why are conspiracists so preoccupied with an agent who tried to abandon his duty post so he could ride along with the "boss"?

Pretty soon nearly every direct eyewitness and/or participant in that day's events (other than the shooting) will probably be dead. After that, you guys can accuse anyone and everyone without contradiction.

Oswald did it, dude. What evidence do you need to see to convince you of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #344
347. Just answering to the
Edited on Wed Sep-29-10 04:38 PM by k-robjoe
question :

>"More importantly, a large number of JFK assassination conspiracists claim JFK was also shot from the front. If that is, in fact, true, why are conspiracists so preoccupied with an agent who tried to abandon his duty post so he could ride along with the "boss"?"

This can be confusing. The theory is that the conspirators had snipers placed behind the limousine ( School Book Depository / Dal-Tex ), and also in front of the limousine ( Grassy Knoll ).

So the plan is that the snipers behind the limousine does the job, and the sniper ( snipers? ) on the grassy knoll will only fire if the others for some reason fail.

So with this plan they would need a clear view from behind. And a clear view from the grassy knoll. ( No motorcycles driving beside the front bumpers, as they usually did. All of them behind the limousine. )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #344
348. what's the source for that?
I don't follow this stuff. How do you know that the agent was assigned to Air Force One? (Seems pretty wild to abandon one's duty post to run alongside JFK -- I mean, how was he going to get away with that?)

The video implies that it was routine to have agents stationed at the rear corners of the limo. Status?

I don't see how any of this is pivotal to the assassination; I'm just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #348
350. Rybka
Apparently, after the assassination, Emory Roberts, the guy telling the agent to get off the limousine, wrote in a report that the agent in question ( Rybka ) was in the followup car at the time of the assassination :

http://www.copweb.be/Emory%20Roberts.htm

( Havent double-checked this, so let me know if its false. )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #348
352. Pre-emptive mea culpa...
I was doing this one from memory and, based upon something K-robjoe said, I might have gotten it wrong and Rybka might have already been assigned to drive one of the follow-up cars. In my opinion, taking a very grainy film clip and intuiting from it that Rybka was deliberately and maliciously "pulled off" the limo has no more merit than most of the other JFK assassination conspiracy bullshit.

I'm kinda busy, but I'll track it down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #352
353. fair enough
No hurry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #348
357. More on Emory Roberts
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 03:15 PM by k-robjoe
About how Emory Roberts seemed to "switch" once Kennedy was dead :

"Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers best summed up the situation when they wrote: "Roberts, one of President Kennedy's agents...had decided to switch to Johnson as soon as Kennedy was shot. In addition, four other authors have noted Agent Roberts' "switch of allegiance," including Chief Curry.

Once at Parkland Hospital, SA Roberts totally usurped his superior, number-three agent Roy Kellerman. Emory ordered Kellerman's agents around and confided in Rufus Youngblood, the soon-to-be SAIC, replacing the absent Behn.

What William Manchester reports as having occurred at Parkland makes one both sick and repulsed: "Powers and O'Donnell bounded toward the Lincoln. Powers heard Emory Roberts shouting at him to stop but disregarded him; a second might save Kennedy's life (...)

Emory Roberts brushed past O'Donnell, determined to make sure that Kennedy was dead. 'Get up,' he said to Jacqueline Kennedy. There was no reply. She was crooning faintly. From his side Roberts could see the President's face, so he lifted her elbow for a close look. He dropped it. To Kellerman, his superior, he said tersely, 'You stay with Kennedy. I'm going to Johnson.'" "

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2010/01/kenny-odonnel...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #357
365. Same guy
The same guy - Emory Roberts - called back an agent who was about to run up to the limousine when he heard the first shot.

The reason Emory Roberts gave for this, seems pretty lame :

"Special Agent Ready, on the right front running board of the Presidential follow-up car, heard noises that sounded like firecrackers and ran toward the President's limousine. But he was immediately called back by Special Agent Emory P. Roberts, in charge of the follow-up car, who did not believe that he could reach, the President's car at the speed it was then traveling."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-...

Clint Hill must have ignored the order from Emory Roberts to stay put.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-02-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #357
366. Press car
Getting the press out of the way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUUH9jNSXjc

"The press photographers who normally rode in a flatbed truck
directly in front of Kennedy's limousine were relegated to a position behind the presidents limousine. According to reporter Tom Dillard, this change occurred at the last minute at Love Field."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #343
346. Everett Kay
In this video-clip Everett Kay explains that after they got on tape Mr. Miteer, saying that an assassination of Kennedy was in the works, they added extra security for his trip to Miami, november 19.

Then the clip ends with a quote from the HSCA Report, that no word about this was sent to the Agents preparing security for the trip to Dallas.

Pretty unbelievable.

"In this video, lead detective Everett Kay describes setting up the surveillance, discusses the contents of the tape and discloses what security changes for the President's November 18th visit to Miami were made in light of the threat."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdbVyhzCcq4

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Yeahyeah Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. He should keep it zipped and die,goddammit!And die broke too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. google JFK II if you haven't already. too many coincidences
To me, that pretty much gets it close to the right ball park.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gazeteere Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-21-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. OMG I can't believe all this silliness.
Edited on Sat Aug-21-10 02:22 PM by gazeteere
Everybody knows that Johnson and Hoover framed Lee Harvey Oswald, this is all very clear, there is no mystery left.

There's nothing left to debate, the culbrits are clear.

Is anybody not clearly aware of Nixon's involvement in this entire affair?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #25
228. Interesting link --
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
96. I watched this movie again to refresh my memory....
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 03:26 AM by SDuderstadt
you realize that this "film maker" not only gets multiple facts wrong, he outright lies in it repeatedly, right? For example, the name of one of the ships in the Bay of Pigs was the "Barbara J", not the "Barbara". Why does the "film maker" lie about this? Because, Barbara Bush's maiden name was Pierce, so the "J" cannot possibly stand for her former name. So what? It probably is her middle initial, right? Just one problem...she didn't have a middle name.

What a bunch of CT bullshit. And you got taken in by it. Any time to want to go head-to-head on this stupid movie, just let me know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Bush

http://www.accuracyproject.org/cbe-Bush,Barbara.html

http://www.whosaliveandwhosdead.com/n/bush__ba.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/barbara-bush

http://www.answers.com/topic/barbara-bush

Late on April 16, 1961, the CIA/Brigade 2506 invasion fleet converged on "Rendezvous Point Zulu", about 65 kilometres (40 mi) south of Cuba, having sailed from Puerto Cabezas in Nicaragua where they had been loaded with troops and other materiel, after loading arms and supplies at New Orleans. The US Navy operation was code-named Bumpy Road, having been changed from Crosspatch on 1 April 1961<12>. The fleet, labelled the "Cuban Expeditionary Force" (CEF), included five 2,400-ton (empty weight) freighter ships chartered by the CIA from the Garcia Line and outfitted with anti-aircraft guns. Four of the freighters, Houston (code name Aguja), Ro Escondido (code name Balena), Caribe (code name Sardina), and Atlntico (code-name Tiburon), were planned to transport about 1,400 troops in seven battalions of troops and armaments near to the invasion beaches. The fifth freighter, Lake Charles, was loaded with follow-up supplies and some Operation 40 infiltration personnel. The freighters sailed under Liberian ensigns. Accompanying them were two LCIs (Landing Craft Infantry) "purchased" from Zapata Corporation then outfitted with heavy armament at Key West, then exercises and training at Vieques Island. The LCIs were Blagar (code-name Marsopa) and Barbara J (code-name Barracuda), sailing under Nicaraguan ensigns. The CEF ships were individually escorted (outside visual range) to Point Zulu by US Navy destroyers USS Bache, USS Beale, USS Conway, USS Cony, USS Eaton, USS Murray, USS Waller. A task force had already assembled off the Cayman Islands, including aircraft carrier USS Essex with task force commander John A. Clark (Admiral) onboard, helicopter assault carrier USS Boxer, destroyers USS Hank, USS John W. Weeks, USS Purdy, USS Wren, and submarines USS Cobbler and USS Threadfin. Command and control ship USS Northampton and carrier USS Shangri-La were also reportedly active in the Caribbean at the time. USS San Marcos was a Landing Ship Dock that carried three LCUs (Landing Craft Utility) and four LCVPs (Landing Craft, Vehicles, Personnel). San Marcos had sailed from Vieques Island. At Point Zulu, the seven CEF ships sailed north without the USN escorts, except for San Marcos that continued until the seven landing craft were unloaded when just outside the 5 kilometres (3 mi) Cuban territorial limit.<5><18><43>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Dude...
JFK himself talked that day of possibly being shot from an office building. Are you honestly claiming Milteer is providing specific detail? Sounds pretty vague to me. In fact, they don't even have the date right.

Beyond that, in his memoir, EMK reaffirmed his confidence in the WC. Are you suggesting he wasn't really a Dem?

I'm every bit as much a Dem as you are and probably more so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Dude, how's that Journal coming?
Milteer was pretty specific:

Thirteen days before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, a man named Joseph Milteer was tape recorded telling Miami police informant William Somersett that the murder of Kennedy was "in the working," that the best means of killing Kennedy was "from an office building with a high-powered rifle," and that "they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Predictions_o...

BTW: Where did you get the idea I was writing about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. "Where did you get the idea I was writing about you?"
Edited on Sun Aug-22-10 03:44 PM by SDuderstadt
Because that's your M.O., dude. You can't prevail on the facts, so you assail our motivation.

Not only that, you also try to divert attention away from questions you're asked that you cannot answer. I have no interest in writing a "journal", dude. You're doing a fine job embarrassing the JFK assassination conspiracy "community" all by yourself.

IN the meantime, you claimed that Milteer "pretty much outlined the 'official version of Dallas' before it happened". Really, dude? Did he mention Oswald? Hint: no. Why would that be so hard to include if Milteer had knowledge of a specific plot? It's no secret that Milteer wanted JFK dead, but so did a lot of RW nuts.

I'm certain you think Nostradamus made specific predictions too, dude. But, like all JFK assassination CT's, you leave vital information out, because it undercuts your case. The reader can follow the link below to see what you've "forgotten" to mention.

It's been nearly 5 decades, dude...are you guys close to blowing the lid off this thing?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. John McAdams is something else.
What that is, I don't exactly know. I agree with people who say he is a professional right wing debunker and hate monger. What's odd, to me, is he teaches at a Jesuit university.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Jesus, here we go again...
Dude...are you really offering up Hargrove as your proof of something? He's not only a very poor writer, he offers little to no documentation for his claims. For example, he claims that one picture is of McAdams gleefully deleting posts from JFK CT's. How, specifically, does Hargrove establish the context for that picture? Does Hargrove claim McAdams has distributed that picture and provided that synopsis? Did Hargrove somehow secretly snap a picture of McAdams committing this "nefarious deed" without McAdams knowing it? Hargrove doesn't say. I'm sure to the casual reader it looks like McAdams simply smiling about something, whatever it is.

The very fact that you would submit something like this as "proof" of anything is why I question your ability to assemble facts, analyze, evaluate and interpret them, then draw reasonable and supportable conclusions from them. You never fail to disappoint me.

No one is questioning your right to question the conclusions of the WCR or the HSCA, for that matter. But, if you want people to embrace your fantasies about whomever you think actually killed JFK, you'll have to come up with some actual proof, not more confused, disjointed JFK assassination CT nonsense. You've had nearly fifty years, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
65. ''You've had nearly fifty years, dude.''
Whether committed by one person or a conspiracy of many, there's no statute of limitations on murder or treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Quit pretending I'm talking about a "statute of limitations, dude...
The issue is the incompetence and/or stubbornness of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, who, after nearly fifty years, still have exactly dick for evidence. Why can't you point to at least one real breakthrough within that time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Abraham Bolden
Abraham Bolden was the first African American Secret Service agent, personally selected by JFK for White House duty. He helped stop the Chicago plot to assassinate President Kennedy. He spoke up about lack security after Dallas and got railroaded.

Ex-Secret Service agent reveals Chicago JFK plot

The great author and journalist Edwin Black broke the story, way back when (PDF):

The Plot to Kill JFK in Chicago

Hope these answer your question, sduderstadt: "The issue is the incompetence and/or stubbornness of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, who, after nearly fifty years, still have exactly dick for evidence. Why can't you point to at least one real breakthrough within that time?"

After reading about Abraham Bolden, you will have learned that there is an abundance of evidence for government cover-up, as well as apparent complicity, in the assassination.

One question you should be asking is: Why don't more people know Bolden's story? That answer must lie with America's corrupt corporate media, for-profit organizations not known for any great interest in spreading inconvenient truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Another diversion from you, dude...
man, you'll throw up anything to divert attention away from your spectacular lack of results.

Well, it's not like the media have ignored him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

And, of course, you neglected to mention that the HSCA took testimony from him and rejected his claims and you also forgot to mention a rather important part of Bolden's history, dude.



355 F.2d 453
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Abraham W. BOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14907.
Dec. 29, 1965, Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1966, En Banc.
Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Joseph Samuel Perry,
Judge, of soliciting bribe in return for violating defendant's
official duties as Secret Service agent, and defendant appealed. The
Court of Appeals, Swygert, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia other things], that Secret Service agent charged with soliciting bribe
could not first complain on appeal of deprivation of counsel at
prearrest interrogation.
Affirmed.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bolden.pdf

I eagerly await your next attempt to deflect attention away from your rather embarrassing track record, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. Despite your provocations, I've tried to be nice. So answer my question: What part isn't true?
It's been a year and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've posted something that wasn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #82
95. Gladly...
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 01:17 AM by SDuderstadt
let's start with your assertion that one cannot be satisfied with the conclusions of the WC or the HSCA and still be a good Democrat.

Are you saying EMK was not a good Democrat? Or, are you, more likely, smearing people who dare to disagree with you on the facts?

Next up will be your rather silly claim that George H.W. Bush was somehow involved in the murder of JFK. Sure you want to do this, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. No. Still wrong.
Where did I ever say that my opinion was fact? Got a link for your assertion?

I've got more than 22,000 posts. So, it's not easy finding it.

Oh yeah, I've also got a journal where you can read my opinions and posts. That makes it easy to see where I stand.

You on the other hand, don't have a journal, making it more difficult to see the overall concerns of your postings. Thus, I have to rely on the DU Advance Search function and GOOGLEing "sduderstadt + EMK", for example, to find where you stand.

Most revealing, words. They stand for ideas, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. More of your smears...
dude. What is "most revealing" about my words about EMK?

Simple fact: EMK accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission. You're still going down this path of questioning the motivation of anyone who disagrees with you on the facts and, more importantly, debunks your goofy bullshit.

And, of course, now you're trying to weasel out of your assertion that one can accept the WCR and still be a Democrat. I'm going to ask you to quit assailing my motivation rather than stick to a discussion of the facts. Your choice, dude.

Still sure you want to go down this path?

I'll repeat my challenge. What, precisely, is "most revealing" about anything I have said about EMK, dude? Or, we can play it a different way and I'll start using your tactics against you. You'll lose either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. You haven't posted a single source, author or even link. And, I have to answer you? LOL!
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 04:14 PM by Octafish
As for "smear," where is your link where I "assert" that only Democrats refute the Warren Commission? I have your assertion, but no reference where we can see what you describe.

While I have written about my beliefs, such as my belief that George Herbert Walker Bush played some role in the assassination, based on his report to the FBI that he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination, I have made clear to indicate it as such. When I present the reasons why I feel that way, I provide a source.

So, I ask again: Where have I posted something that is not true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. LOL??
What do you find funny about the JFK assassination?

See how it feels, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #104
114. My point: Hoover did 'lie his eyes out.' For example, FBI destroyed critical evidence after Dallas.
In the hours after Jack Ruby shot Oswald, the FBI destroyed a note Oswald wrote to Special Agent James P. Hosty.



Destruction of the Oswald Note

In 1975, the allegation surfaced that the FBI had destroyed a note delivered to it by Lee Harvey Oswald, just one or two weeks prior to the assassination of President Kennedy. An internal FBI investigation failed to find any records relating to this, but interviews of Dallas Field Office personnel established that an Oswald visit and note dropoff had occurred.

The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from several relevant witnesses, as did the contemporaneous Church Committee. The results of this were:
    Oswald definitely did visit the Dallas Field Office a week to two weeks prior to the assassination, looking for Agent Hosty, who had recently visited his wife Marina.
    When told that Hosty was not in, Oswald left a note in an envelope which was unsealed.
    The note contained some sort of threat, but accounts varied widely as to whether Oswald threatened to "blow up the FBI" or merely "report this to higher authorities."
    Within hours after Oswald's murder on 24 Nov 1963, Hosty destroyed the note and a memorandum which Special-Agent-in-Charge Gordon Shanklin had ordered written on November 22.
Hosty maintained that Shanklin, the head of hte Dallas Field Office, had ordered him to destroy the note. Shanklin denied ever having heard of the note until 1975, though Assistant Director William Sullivan did recall the incident. The House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed the incident and did not find Shanklin's denial credible.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Destruction_o...



BTW: Are you trying to get me mad, sduderstadt? All you do is magnify the tiniest fault in what I write and ignore the falsehoods you peddle, specifically that I lie. I've asked you to show me where, yet you can't. LOL! LOL at you, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #114
118. This is unintentional irony, right?
Edited on Fri Aug-27-10 01:36 PM by SDuderstadt
"all you do is magnify the tiniest error in what I write and ignore the falsehoods that you peddle, specifically that I lie"

Really, dude? Then it shouldn't be hard for to provide an example of anywhere that I have ever accused you of a lie. I'd be happy with a single example. Good luck with that.

It'd also be great if you could provide an example of a single falsehood I've peddled, especially after it's so obvious I have never, ever once accused you of lying.

This "debate" is suspended until you withdraw your false accusation and apologize, dude. I would throw in one more choice, that of finding an example of any time I have accused you of a lie, but we've already witnessed you step on your dick in an embarrassingly public way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #118
122. Apologize for what? Stating what's obvious to anyone who reads this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #122
125. For your false accusation...
dude. Your "who, me?" defense isn't working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #99
106. I'll ask again, dude....
what is "most revealing" in what I've written about EMK, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #106
115. The volume, Dude.
Loud and Lots. All hot air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. Another cryptic, incoherent...
Edited on Fri Aug-27-10 12:14 PM by SDuderstadt
response from you. You made the sinister-sounding claim that what I've written about EMK is "most revealing".When I call you on it and request clarification, you, true to your m.o., further mystify it with a bullshit answer, which is why I don't regard you as a serious JFK assassination conspiracy theory "researcher", dude.

Simple question: wtf are you babbling about now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #117
123. You answer my question: What did I write that wasn't true?
You don't, because you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. I alreasdy pointed out several, dude...
withdrawal and apology coming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. No, you haven't.
What you seem to be doing is trying to incite an angry response from me.

Would that make you happy?

Why don't you do what I asked over a year ago? Show me where I what I wrote was false. I'd be happy to admit a mistake. But, you can't. So, you don't. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. I've done it over and over...
dude.

I suspect you get embarrassed getting shown up in front of your little groupies, so you make false accusations.

I see you can't find an example of my accusing you of a lie, so you try to change the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #128
196. What ''little groupies?''
Are they the same people you sanctimoniously implore to rise above name-calling for 24 hours on September 11?

If so, you are again wrong, sduderstadt. I don't need to team up with anybody to answer your false allegations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #196
197. Here we go again...
Please, oh please, point to a single false allegation from me.

Please don't let your little groupies down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jamwill Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. The sad part is...he was sent to jail...and the main witness later confessed to being a liar
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 10:30 PM by Jamwill
About Bolden.

People defending the official theory will not mention the fact that the main witness was a liar, so be ready to point that out.

From another article I read, this one in the Washington Post: "Convicted on testimony from the shadiest of characters, he was denied appeals even when a key trial witness confessed to perjury."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. If you're going to make claims...
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 10:53 PM by SDuderstadt
you might want to provide some documentation of them.

Hint: Goofy bullshit conspiracy theory websites don't count, dude.

In point of fact, your "quote" is actually from a book review by Bruce Watson, which, although it did appear in the Washington Post, was not a hard news "article", the impression you leave the reader with.

Which incarnation is this one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jamwill Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Even the WAPO link you gave us says it (Plus the Chicago Tribune)
You gave us a link to read...and now you tell us that lies are told in the article?

Washington Post (your link): "Despite having a spotless record, Bolden found himself charged with selling government information to a suspect. Convicted on testimony from the shadiest of characters, he was denied appeals even when a key trial witness confessed to perjury."

And...

Chicago Tribune: "After testifying against Bolden, Spagnoli went on trial himself, accused of counterfeiting. During his testimony, under questioning by legendary Chicago defense lawyer Frank Oliver, Spagnoli admitted he had perjured himself during Bolden's triallying about how he made a living to cover up illegal gamblingbut a judge cut off further efforts to find out what else he might have lied about.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eediti...


I guess the newspapers are part of a conspiracy to pretend Spagnoli committed perjury. See? Conspiracies exist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Dude...
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 10:57 PM by SDuderstadt
since when is a "book review" an article?

I see that you're up to your old tricks, whatever your name is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. "and now you tell us that lies are told in the article?"
BTW, dude...I said no such thing. This is just you dishonestly mischaracterizing what I actually said, then trying to have a completely different argument. Just like several other incarnations.

No dice, whatever your name is this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. When I retire...
... I'm thinking of writing a screenplay for my own version of JFK, except it will take all the conspiracy theories and show that they all coincidentally decided to do it in Dealey Plaza on November 22. (Oswald himself will need to be at least a quintuple agent, but I don't think that's a problem.) As I see it, that's the only possible explanation for why there are so many convincing theories, so my movie will be much better than Stone's.

But I digress. Anyway, I don't seem to see a lot of people, Democrats or otherwise, "cast aspersions on those who are interested in learning more about the assassination of President Kennedy." Making implausible factual claims is a different story, however, regardless of the topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. The Joseph Milteer tape is evidence of conspiracy. IMO, it should've been emphasized by Mr. Stone.
My Friend, I look forward to seeing your movie. Let me know when the script is written and I'll be happy to help you get in touch with some people.



PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION

Michael T. Griffith

2002

EXCERPT...

The Joseph Milteer Tape

Joseph Milteer was a wealthy, well-connected right-wing extremist. Milteer was a leader in the right-wing National States Rights Party and a regional director for the radical Constitution Party. He associated with leaders and members of the Ku Klux Klan. A few months before the assassination, Milteer contacted anti-Castro Cubans in the Miami area about purchasing guns. On November 9, 1963, less than three weeks before the assassination, Milteer told a Miami police informant that a hit on Kennedy was in the works. The informant's name was William Somersett. The room where Milteer met Somersett was wired for sound by the police and thus Milteer's words were captured on tape. The Milteer tape is available online and is included in several documentaries on the assassination. When Milteer met with the informant after the assassination, he said everything had gone according to plan and that he knew beforehand that Kennedy was going to be killed. The HSCA Report says the following about the Milteer threat:
    Similarly, the Secret Service failed to follow up fully on a threat in Miami, also in November 1963. On November 9, 1963, an informant for the Miami police, William Somersett, had secretly recorded a conversation with a rightwing extremist named Joseph A. Milteer, who suggested there was a plot in existence to assassinate the President with a high-powered rifle from a tall building. Miami Police intelligence officers met with Secret Service agents on November 12 and provided a transcript of the Somersett recording. It read in part:

      SOMERSETT. I think Kennedy is coming here November 18 to make some kind of speech. I don't know what it is, but I imagine it will be on TV.
      MILTEER. You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans; there are so many of them here.
      SOMERSETT. Well, he'll have a thousand bodyguards, don't worry about that.
      MILTEER. The more bodyguards he has, the easier it is to get him.
      SOMERSETT. What?
      MILTEER. The more bodyguards he has, the easier it is to get him.
      SOMERSETT. Well, how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him?
      MILTEER. From an office building with a high-powered rifle....
      SOMERSETT. They are really going to try to kill him?
      MILTEER. Oh, yeah; it is in the working....
      SOMERSETT. ...Hitting this Kennedy is going to be a hard proposition. I believe you may have figured out a way to get him, the office building and all that. I don't know how them Secret Service agents cover all them office buildings everywhere he is going. Do you know whether they do that or not?
      MILTEER. Well, if they have any suspicion, they do that, of course. But without suspicion, chances are that they wouldn't.

    During the meeting at which the Miami Police Department provided this transcript to the Secret Service, it also advised the Secret Service that Milteer had been involved with persons who professed a dislike for President Kennedy and were suspected of having committed violent acts, including the bombing of a Birmingham, Ala. church in which four young girls had been killed. They also reported that Milteer was connected with several radical rightwing organizations and traveled extensively throughout the United States in support of their views. . . .

    Following the assassination, Somersett again met with Milteer. Milteer commented that things had gone as he had predicted. Somersett asked if Milteer actually had known in advance of the assassination or had just been guessing. Milteer asserted that he had been certain beforehand about the inevitability of the assassination. (HSCA Report, pp. 232-233)
Lone-gunman theorists have strongly challenged both Milteer and the informant Somersett. They dismiss Milteer's statements as demented, over-heated speculation, noting that Milteer believed Kennedy had fifteen look-alikes for security purposes. They also point to a few discrepancies between Somersett's initial debriefing with the Miami Police Department's Intelligence Unit and his later statement to the FBI. For example, Somersett told the FBI that Milteer called him from Dallas on the morning of the assassination and said Kennedy probably wouldn't leave there alive. Yet Somersett said nothing about this in his initial debriefing with the Miami police, and there is evidence Milteer was in fact in Georgia at the time of the assassination. Lone-gunman theorists also note that an FBI official and a Secret Service official said Somersett was unreliable. They fail to mention that the FBI sought to discredit virtually any informant who had information that pointed to conspiracy in the assassination, even if the informant had a good record for reliability. The Secret Service official whom Warren Commission apologists cite didn't attack Somersett until 1967, when Somersett was cooperating with Jim Garrison's investigation. Other law enforcement officials who dealt with Somersett believed he was reliable. And, some lone-gunman theorists claim Milteer specified that Jack Brown would kill Kennedy and/or that the assassination would happen in Washington, D.C. The Milteer tape proves both claims to be incorrect. Milteer only suggested Brown could kill Kennedy--he didn't say Brown would positively be the man to do it. Nor did Milteer say the shooting would occur in D.C. Somersett discussed this issue in his 11/26/63 interview with the Miami Police Department's Intelligence Unit:
    The impression I get from him , I think the thing was set up to kill Mr. Kennedy in the South, in some southern state. There was no particular town picked out, it was just the opportunity of the town that would suit best when the proper time comes. I think that when this man Mr. Kennedy left Miami, it was published in the papers, where he would go, and I think that they just set this man up in Texas and had him kill him right there. Because Milteer is too much enthused over it, he discussed it too much before hand and after not to know something about it.
Furthermore, it should be noted that a Secret Service report (CE 762) documents that the Secret Service received information from an FBI source that reinforced Milteer's taped prediction and that supported Somersett's account. The report dealt with information that the Secret Service received from the FBI just seven days before the assassination. According to the report, an unnamed contact in the Ku Klux Klan said that during his travels around the country his sources had told him "that a militant group of the National States Rights Party plans to assassinate the President and other high-level officials" (see also Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much, New York: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1992, pp. 550-551). As mentioned, Milteer was a leader in the National States Rights Party and was involved with other radical groups. He was certainly in a position to hear about a plot by radical right-wing militants to kill Kennedy, and the tape of his November 9 meeting with Somersett records that he was certain a hit on Kennedy was "in the working."

SOURCE:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/physical.htm



BTW: Sorry you don't see a surprising number of DUers, people who call themselves Democrats and democrats, who cast aspersion on those seeking Truth in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy. They are all around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. I'm calling your bluff, dude....
Sorry you don't see a surprising number of DUers, people who call themselves Democrats and democrats, who cast aspersion on those seeking Truth in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy. They are all around.


If "they" are all around, point to one. Be specific. Take your time.

BTW, it's pretty funny that you accuse "us" of casting aspersion, even as you cast aspersions.

What a hoot.

Can we expect any progress in you guys blowing the lid off this thing, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. It's no bluff. Here's what you wrote about the JFK assassination...
Coming from you, thats quite a compliment.

You were most emphatic in your assertions, but most lacking in your sourcing. It was part of a larger thread in Latest Breaking News:

(Michigan) County Commissioner Compares Obama to Hitler

Hope DUers visit and see how you falsely illustrated the amount of evidence uncovered -- the proper verb, when considering the FBI and CIA have consistently lied to the Warren Commission and the American people in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy for more than 46 years.



DUers who visit the above the thread may also see "zero" is about what you measure as the NAZI influence on the American national security state. Again, you are entitled to state your own opinion. My point is I won't disparage you for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Sigh....
Edited on Sun Aug-22-10 05:59 PM by SDuderstadt
dude, the challenge to you was to point to a single example where I or anyone else "cast aspersions" on you or any other JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. Thanks for proving my point.

Where, oh where, in there is an aspersion? Did I question your motivation? Hint: no. Did I call you a name? Hint: no. Did I suggest that you had some sort of nefarious purpose in what you posted? Hint: no.

What I did, and have done, is to question your grasp of the actual facts, as well as your ability to analyze, evaluate and draw conclusions. That's not "casting aspersions". You, on the other hand, sillily suggest that one cannot be a Democrat and simultaneously believe the WCR and subsequent investigations provide the best explanation of that day. In Logic that's called "psychic foreclosure". You try to win the debate by reflexively casting aspersions on the Democratic credentials of anyone who dares to disagree with you on the facts.

As I previously pointed out, EMK, in his memoir, reaffirmed his confidence in, and acceptance of, the conclusions of the WCR. That, in and of itself, disproves your rather silly claim, unless you can somehow establish how EMK was actually a Republican, dude.

This gets sillier by the moment. You guys have had nearly FIFTY years to bust this thing wide open and you keep rebunking the same previously debunked nonsense. I have also posed a question to you over and over with nothing that remotely resembles a cogent answer over the lifecycle of the question.

Simple question; We know from Connally's surgeon, Dr. Shaw, that Connally's entrance wound was in his back, thus establishing he was hit from behind. Given the relative positions of Connally and JFK in the limo, how did the bullet hit Connally where it did WITHOUT first hitting JFK?

Pretty soon all the direct witnesses from that day will be gone and you and your fellow "theorists" can have a field day, because you can assert nearly anything you want without fear of direct contradiction. Tell me something, dude. What, specifically, is holding you guys back?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-10 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Damn! I just found out that the Onion beat me to it
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
midwestnerman Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Don't expect them to address the Milteer article
They will write it off as yet another coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. See posts # 27 and 31...
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Coincidence or Plausible Deniability?
Don't know, but I'd like to know.

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, midwestnerman. Thanks for giving a damn about the state we're in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. You might want to check "midwestnerman's" profile, dude...
I believe he's over at the "pizza shop" with "stevedesmond", "30rock" and several of his other aliases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Wow! Did not know that. I always try to welcome people to DU, even the dungeon.
How did you know abot the other aliases? Are you a moderator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. No, dude...
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 05:09 PM by SDuderstadt
if I was, there would be a moderator icon behind my screenname. Duh.

Read the posts from the various aliases and note the identical languaging and "argument" style (typically a strawman).

I suspect what did "midwestnerman" in was the use of the phrase "that's a tangled web you've weaved (sic) for yourself" which, coincidentally was precisely the same phrase 30rock employed, right down to the poor grammar. Although, it's also possible he was kicked out just for having a stupid screenname. If your last name was "nerman", would you go around parading it all about?

I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the insinuation that I am a moderator, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Then, if you're not a moderator, mind your own business.
And, while you're at it, find some other post to comment on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. You don't seem to understand the concept of a...
public discussion board, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. Like always getting the last word in, right, dude?
That's asinine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. "Waaaah! Quit replying to my...
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 06:58 PM by SDuderstadt
replies! Waaaaaaaah!"

For the life of me, I don't know why you can't learn to laugh at yourself, dude. Everybody else does.

Too funny.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
98. Define ''Everybody.''
You? Be my guest. You can laugh all you want.

BTW: You still haven't answered my question: Show me where I've posted something that wasn't true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. See post # 95....
dude. And, I should have been clearer when I used the term "everybody". I meant to say everybody outside your little circle of groupies, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Nobody there. No link. No sources. Just you and your accusation. Big deal. Dude.
You can make all the accusations you want, yet you still fail to show me where what I have posted is not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. Fucking unbelievable...
are you somehow asking me to prove that Bush I didn't kill JFK? I am basically pointing out that you have failed to prove your claim and you can't get off the hook by claiming it's merely your "belief", dude. Beyond that, do you honestly believe that an FBI memo that establishes he was on his way to Dallas at the time of the assassination proves some degree of involvement?? He lived in Houston, dude.

Trying to reason with you reminds me of that great scene from "The Usual Suspects" when the police accost Todd Hockney at his garage after the heist and announce to him, "we can place you in Queens on the day of the heist". Hockney chuckles to himself and says, "Really? I live in Queens". So, unless you can somehow show that Bush engineered JFK's trip to Dallas and/or Bush had no legitimate reason to be in Dallas that day, as I have noted before, you've got exactly dick.

Actually, what it really reminds me of is arguing with RWers when Juanita Broaderick leveled rape accusations at Bill Clinton. Since he was running for governor at the time, the RWers (no kidding) tried to argue that Clinton should be compelled to produce his campaign calendar and, if it showed that Clinton was in Little Rock the day Broadderick alleged, that would PROVE that Clinton raped her. With the same chuckle as Hockney, I reminded them that Clinton was the sitting A.G. at the time and, therefore, his OFFICE was in Little Rock and, I "believe", he and Hillary lived in LR at the time.

Surely you're smarter than a RWer, aren't you, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #105
113. Don't know if I'm smarter than anybody. If I were, I certainly wouldn't brag about it.
Tell you what: I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything. That's why I'm interested in the assassination of President Kennedy -- I don't believe the Warren Commission version is anywhere near the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #113
116. I'm willing to bet that...
you've never actually read the WCR, dude. It's evident from the questions you ask and the goofy conspiracy theory bullshit you dispense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #116
126. Why does putting words in my mouth make you so happy?
I've got a copy of the 888-page thing. Don't need to re-read it to make you happy. Here's a resource for those, like me, who think it's bogus:



THE WARREN COMMISSION'S FAILED INVESTIGATION

Michael T. Griffith
2002
@All Rights Reserved
Revised and Expanded on 2/19/2002

EXCERPT...

Critics of the Warren Commission have identified numerous errors, omissions, and shortcomings in the commission's investigation, many of which were also identified by the HSCA. Here are some of them:
    1. The commission failed to produce a credible explanation for the wounding of bystander James Tague in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. The Tague wounding is evidence that more than three shots were fired.

    2. The commission missed, or ignored, indications in the Zapruder film (1) that a shot was fired prior to frame 166, i.e., before the limousine passed beneath the oak tree on Elm Street, and (2) that another shot was fired while the sixth-floor gunman's view of the limousine would have been obscured and even blocked, i.e., at around frames 185-190.

    3. The commission misrepresented the results of its own wound ballistics tests with regard to both the single-bullet theory and the fatal head shot.

    4. The commission failed to mention in its report that one of its members, Senator Richard Russell, had very strong doubts about the single-bullet theory, and that two other members of the commission shared some of Russell's doubts. We now know that Russell outright rejected the theory, and that the commission suppressed from the official record Russell's objections to it. Russell forced one last executive meeting of the commission, in order to put on the record his objections to the single-bullet theory. The meeting was held on September 18, 1964. At the meeting, Russell distributed copies of a memo in which he outlined his objections to the single-bullet scenario. Russell naturally expected that the minutes of the meeting would reflect his objections. However, someone created a fake transcript of the meeting. The existing transcript of the September 18 meeting says nothing about Russell's strong objections to the single-bullet theory. Nor does it mention that Russell forced the meeting to have his objections recorded for the official record. Nor does it mention that Russell handed out a copy of his written objections at the meeting. None of these things is even mentioned in the extant transcript of the meeting. When the fake transcript of the meeting was brought to light in 1968, Russell was very upset after reading it. The Assassination Records Review Board attempted to locate the original transcript, but was unable to do so. (Incidentally, one year after the bogus transcript was released, Russell stated in a filmed interview that he was not convinced Oswald had acted alone.)

    5. The commission rejected the account of Silvia Odio on the basis of bogus evidence and unproven assertions. The Odio incident indicates that Oswald was involved with anti-Castro Cuban exiles who were talking about killing Kennedy or that someone was impersonating Oswald while he was in Mexico City. Apparently the Warren Commission didn't want to deal with either implication of the Odio incident, so it dismissed Odio's story.

    6. The commission never even mentioned that in the Zapruder film Kennedy's head and upper body snap violently backward and to the left when the fatal head shot occurs. In fact, when the commission printed the frames from the film, it reversed two key frames of the head shot sequence. When this fact was made public, the changing of the order of the frames was blamed on a "printing error."

    CONTINUED...

    http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/failed.htm



BTW: I'd rather be called all the names in the world by you than give in to the lie that is the Warren Commission report. How you can swallow that swill speaks volumes about you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #126
129. "I'd rather be called all the names in the world by you than give in to the lie that is the....
Edited on Fri Aug-27-10 08:05 PM by SDuderstadt
Warren Commission report"

You just did it again, dude. Please point to anywhere that I called you a name. For that matter, point to anywhere that I "put words in your mouth".

Your citing of Griffin as some sort of source for anything is nothing short of laughable. Why is it when CT types get called on their goofy bullshit, they think piling on more goofy CT bullshit gets them out of a jam.

It's still quite obvious you've never read the WCR, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #129
191. I read the Warren Commission Report. FBI agent Hosty destroying Oswald's note is nowhere in it.
The FBI destroyed evidence -- obstructed justice -- when Special Agent James P. Hosty destroyed a note wriiten by Lee Harvey Oswald and left at the Dallas FBI office 13 days before the assassination of President Kennedy. A secretary who received the note from Oswald read it and told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that it contained a threat to blow up the FBI in Dallas. In her words, Oswald's "letter" read: ("I will either blow up the Dallas Police Department and the FBI office."). Hosty said its contents were of a "non-violent" nature, directed toward him because he had interviewed Marina Oswald when Lee Harvey Oswasld wasn't home.

The FBI destroying this note is just one of many examples of important information that the FBI excluded from reporting to the Warren Commission. Other government agencies also witheld important information from the Warren Commission, including the Secret Service and FBI.

What sets you and me apart, sduderstadt: You think there's an honest explanation for the Hosty affair and believe that the government has reported the truth about President Kennedy's assassination. I say people in the government have lied and continue to cover-up the circumstances of President Kennedy's assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #191
192. You should stop telling me...
Edited on Mon Sep-13-10 12:41 AM by SDuderstadt
what I think, dude.

It's only been 47 years. Depending on how old you are, who knows how many more years you have to waste on this, dude. Your false nobility is entertaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #192
194. I answered your false allegation, sduderstadt. Sorry if spending time on the JFK case bothers you.
You shouldn't spend so much time trying to crap on my thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #194
198. I see...
your lack of results should be above criticism?

Seriously, dude, what is your excuse for nearly fifty years of coming up empty-banded? Why can't you guys converge hoon a person or group of people and show they did it and how? Aren't you embarrassed by now? Maybe you should let professionals take over and save yourself further embarrassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #198
202. Pardon the intrusion
I must ask how ones proves anything in a conspiracy that is/was successful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #198
203. You're kidding...
right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #191
193. James W. Sibert
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #193
195. Gerald Ford did do something worse than pardon Nixon.
Thank you, k-robjoe! That interview with FBI agent Sibert is most telling.

Here are a few articles that detail how then-Congressman and Warren Commission member Gerald R. Ford personally manipulated the report to reflect the lone-nut theory:

Gerald Ford: Warren Commission skeptics "no problem"

Interestingly, Ford also had his doubts about the magic bullet hogwash. Ford, IMO, was himself manipulated by the "patriots" who fed him the line about war with the Soviets should the nation learn of Oswald's faked ties to the KGB. When he himself became the first unelected president, Ford certainly was manipulated by the princes of power who continue to roam the corridors of power in Washington, no matter who's president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #195
199. Too bad science was not as far along back then...
Edited on Mon Sep-13-10 09:23 AM by SDuderstadt
or Ford could have turned to Dale Myers.

Ford didn't "manipulate" anything. On the other hand, the JFK assassination CT "community" has engaged in plenty of manipulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #195
200. "Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City -- What's Up with the Fake Oswald?"
You linked to a post from back in 2008, about the imposter in Mexico City.

You got no reply back then. I posted something about it on this thread, and got no reply.

Did you ever get a reply about this?

( Short clip from History Channel about this : http://www.youtube.com/user/jfk63conspiracy#p/u/0/99GlJ... )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #200
201. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #195
204. Sibert again
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 06:48 PM by k-robjoe
I didnt make the connection before, that Sibert was actually present during the autopsy at Bethesda.

Heres an interesting quote about that :

"Law: I was going to ask you to tell me your thoughts on Mr. Specter and the single-bullet theory.

Sibert: Well I - that single-bullet theory - when they had me come up to the ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, "Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I'm not an advocate of the single-bullet theory." I said, "I don't believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302." And I said, "Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas."

Law: You don't believe in the single-bullet theory. Period.

Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can't put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

(...)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me.

It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." "

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsibertW.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #195
205. Frank O'Neill
Heres a clip with the other FBI agent that was present during the autopsy :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzhKy-O4T4&feature=rela...

"FBI agent Frank O'Neill, who was one of two agents present during the JFK autopsy, says in this 2006 interview with Fox News, that Dr. James Humes TWICE tried to trace the track of the bullet that entered Kennedy's back and both times there was "no exit" to be found."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mefistofeles Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #205
322. Great video. No exit=no single bullet
Don't expect WC defenders to say anything about O'neill's words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #195
206. "missile removed"
I never heard about this before. A bullet being removed from Kennedys body during the autopsy :

"RECOVERED BULLET DURING JFK AUTOPSY.

Although there is a great deal of evidence that a bullet was recovered from President Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy, none of the evidence of this bullet was ever mentioned in the public hearings.

To recap, Warren Commission document No. 371 reveals "one receipt from the FBI for a missile removed during the examination of the body." An examination of the receipt shows that a bullet was removed from the body of President Kennedy during the autopsy in the evening of November 22, 1963. This bullet was handed over to and signed for by FBI agents Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert.

The January 4, 1964, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol. 187 No. 1) stated on page 15 that the bullet was recovered during the autopsy.

The Washington Post of December 18, 1963, after checking the report with the FBI before publication, stated that a bullet was recovered from deep within the President's shoulder. This was again confirmed in the Post on May 29, 1966."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/grodn.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. Wait a minute...
This is Groden's testimony being presented as fact. Where's the corroboration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #207
208. Quick search
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #208
209. Which says nothing about...
JFK's left shoulder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #209
210. No, thats true
It was The Washington Post, according to Groden, that wrote it was removed from Kennedys shoulder.

( It doesnt say *left* shoulder. Maybe you meant to say *right* shoulder? )

I dont know if this was an assumption.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #191
380. Dude...
Again, do you understand the difference between inculpatory and exculpatory evidence? Do you think Oswald's note to Hosty, as testified to by the secretary inculpates or exculpates Oswald? Why would Hosty "obstruct justice" to help Oswald?

No one is arguing that Hosty should have destroyed the note, dude. But, as usual, your evidence just does not support your goofy claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. Here's another one...
dude.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p...

You just make shit up. It's embarrassing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #107
112. What's embarrassing is how you treat other people.
Hoover did lie his eyes out. Get made at him, not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #28
61. That would be a hilarious satire
:thumbsup:

Great idea!

The premise being that there were 4 shooters and/or shoot teams, but none knew about the others, or even that there were other plots being hatched. The Warren Commission and the government of course find this out in short order, but it is so ridiculous and implausible that they cover it up, at least in part because that means that four separate plots all succeeded! Needless to say, the final irony is that the cover-up has precisely the effect that the government wanted to avoid by not telling the truth: it heightens distrust of government to the point where you can't accomplish anything anymore. The key scene in the movie is some bureaucrat at the center of the cover-up speculating on "what things will be like in 50 years if nobody trusts the government." It becomes a classic soliloquy in film history.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
38. Joseph A. Milteer pretty much outlined the ''official version of Dallas'' before it happened.
Milteer didn't know he was being taped. Here's a fellow agent Adams identified as Milteer in Dealey Plaza during the motorcade:





Here's what Milteer said in Miami, a few weeks before Dallas:



Transcript of Milteer-Somersett Tape

Note: This is a transcript of a tape recorded on 9 Nov 1963 by Miami Police informant William Somersett, recording a conversion with right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer. The transcript is taken from Harold Weisberg's essay The Milteer Documents...

EXCERPT...

SOMERSETT: I don't know, I think Kennedy is coming here on the 18th, or something like that to make some kind of speech, I don't know what it is, but I imagine it will be on the TV, and you can be on the look for that, I think it is the 18th that he is suppose to be here. I don't know what it is suppose to be about.

MILTEER: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans, there are so many of them here.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, well he will have a thousand bodyguards, don't worry about that.

MILTEER: The more bodyguards he has, the easier it is to get him.

SOMERSETT: What?

MILTEER: The more bodyguards he has the more easier it is to get him.

SOMERSETT: Well how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him?

MILTEER: From an office building with a high-powered rifle, how many people does he have going around who look just like him? Do you know about that?

SOMERSETT: No, I never heard that he had anybody.

MILTEER: He has got them.

SOMERSETT: He has?

MILTEER: He has about fifteen. Whenever he goes any place they he knows he is a marked man.

SOMERSETT: You think he knows he is a marked man?

MILTEER: Sure he does.

SOMERSETT: They are really going to try to kill him?

MILTEER: Oh, yeah, it is in the working, Brown himself, Brown is just as likely to get him as anybody. He hasn't said so, but he tried to get Martin Luther King.

SOMERSETT: He did.

MILTEER: Oh yes, he followed him for miles and miles, and couldn't get close enough to him.

SOMERSETT: You know exactly where he is in Atlanta don't you.

MILTEER: Martin Luther King, yeah.

SOMERSETT: Bustus Street .

MILTEER: Yeah 530.

SOMERSETT: Oh Brown tried to get him huh?

MILTEER: Yeah.

SOMERSETT: Well, he will damn sure do it, I will tell you that. Well, that is why, look, you see, well, that is why we have to be so careful, you know that Brown is operating strong.

MILTEER: He ain't going to play you know.

SOMERSETT: That is right.

MILTEER: He is going for broke.

SOMERSETT: I never asked Brown about his business or anything, you know just what he told me, told us, you know. But after the conversation, and the way he talked to us, there is no question in my mind about who knocked the church off in Birmingham, you can believe that, that is the way I figured it.

MILTEER: That is right, it is about the ony way you can figure it.

SOMERSETT: That is right.

MILTEER: Not being there, not knowing anything.

SOMERSETT: But just from his conversation, as you and me know him, but if they did, it is their business, like you say .

MILTEER: It is up to the individual.

SOMERSETT: That is right. They are individual operators, we don't want that within the party. Hitting this Kennedy is going to be a hard proposition, I tell you, I believe, you may have figured out a way to get him, you may have figured out the office building, and all that. I don't know how them Secret Service agents cover all them office buildings, or anywhere he is going, do you know whether they do that or not?

MILTEER: Well, if they have any suspicion they do that of course. But without suspicion chances are that they wouldn't. You take there in Washington, of course it is the wrong time of the year, but you take pleasant weather, he comes out on the veranda, and somebody could be in a hotel room across the way there, and pick him off just like .

SOMERSETT: Is that right?

MILTEER: Sure, disassemble a gun, you don't have to take a gun up there, you can take it up in pieces, all those guns come knock down, you can take them apart.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Transcript_of ...



Leaders in the Secret Service and FBI, knowing the above, were more than criminally negligent in protecting the President in Dallas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. How many times are you going to post this...
Dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. What's wrong with it? It's the truth: Milteer talked about killing JFK 13 days before Dallas.
Don't take my word for it. Here's what University of Georgia law professor Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., had to say about Joseph A. Milteer:



DID HE KNOW JFK TO DIE?

Published in The Athens Observer, p. 2A (February 12,1987).
Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.

EXCERPT...

On the morning of Nov. 9, 1963, two weeks before the Kennedy assassination, Milteer engaged in a conversation in a Miami hotel room with a man named Willie Somersett. Apparently unknown to Milteer, Somersett (who died in 1970), was an informer for the police who surreptitiously tape-recorded the conversation. The tape was promptly turned over to local Miami police, who then forwarded it to federal authorities. The taped conversation was revealed for the first time publicly in the Miami News in February 1967, although Milteer's named was not mentioned. The Miami News article was quoted at length (again without mentioning Milteer's name) in Harold Weisberg's Oswald in New Orleans, also published in 1967. In 1971 in Frame-Up Weisberg published a transcript of the taped conversation, together with various FBI documents relating to Milteer. This time Milteer's name was given. In 1979 the House Assassinations Committee included information on Milteer in several of its published volumes, and quoted verbatim an excerpt from the transcript of his Nov. 9, 1963 conversation with Somersett.

According to the House Committee transcript, Milteer told Somersett that the killing of Kennedy "was in the working," that the president could be killed "rom an office building with a high-powered rifle," that the rifle could be "disassembled" to get it into the building, and that "hey will pick up somebody within hours afterward, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off." He also mentioned "the Cubans."

When Miami police turned the tape-recorded conversation over to the Secret Service and FBI, there was a flurry of activity and extra security precautions were taken to protect the president on his trip to Miami, which took place on Nov. 18, the Monday before the Friday assassination. However, information about the Milteer remarks apparently was not passed on to Secret Service officials responsible for the trip to Dallas.

Here, then, is a second possible Georgia connection to the JFK assassination: less than two weeks before the president's death, a Georgia political extremist on the far right was recorded saying things that indicate--at least in retrospect--that he knew not only of a plot to kill the president but also some of the details of the plot. Milteer's statements, as noted, were taken seriously by federal authorities; and the Secret Service's Miami office filed on Milteer was entitled "Alleged Possible Threat Against the President."

However, the recorded conversation of Nov. 9, 1963 is not the only evidence of the possibility of a Georgia connection through Joseph Milteer to the JFK killing. According to FBI documents published by Harold Weisberg, Milteer told an informer (presumably Somersett) in an unrecorded conversation in Jacksonville, Fla., on the afternoon of the assassination: "Everything ran true to form. I guess you thought I was kidding you when I said he (Kennedy) would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle."

CONTINUED...

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/...



Professor Wilkes also wrote about the Altgens photo, which apparently captured Milteer in Dealey Plaza:



WAS MILTEER IN DALLAS?

Published in The Athens Observer, p. 2A (February 19, 1987).
Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.

Was Joseph A. Milteer present in or near Dealey Plaza when President Kennedy was shot? If so, this would transform suspicions that he knew in advance of plans to kill the president into suspicions that he might have been a party to the plot. Milteer's proven presence would be a fact of the gravest concern and the most sinister implication.

What evidence is there that Milteer might have been present at the assassination? First, an informer--presumably Somersett--reported that Milteer had called a friend from Dallas on the morning of the assassination. Henry Hurt tells us that in that morning telephone conversation Milteer assured his friend that Kennedy wouldn't be visiting Miami any more. The Assassinations Committee in its Final Report in 1979 said it "could find no evidence that Milteer was in Dallas on the day of the assassination." On the other hand, as Hurt observes, the Committee "also failed to show that he was elsewhere."

Second, Milteer apparently told an informer in Jacksonville, Fla., a few days after the assassination that he had been in Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Houston. While Milteer did not say when the visits had occurred, it is worth noting that these three cities were on President Kennedy's itinerary on his fatal journey to Texas.

Third, it is possible that Milteer was an individual photographed among the motorcade spectators on Houston Street immediately before the president's car turned on to Elm Street and the shooting began. The 35 mm film photograph was taken by James Altgens. The photograph depicts "an unidentified motorcade spectator who bears a strong resemblance to Joseph Adams Milteer"--to quote the words of a panel of experts retained by the Assassinations Committee. The spectator, a bespectacled while male around 60 years old, is standing with his arms folded across his front at a point just beyond and to the right of the approaching presidential limousine, in the photograph. He is among an array of spectators lining the sidewalk on the west side of Houston Street. "Immediately to his right is a taller man wearing a dark hat, coat, and necktie," to again quote the panel of experts.

SNIP...

One other matter remains to be discussed. Once the tape recording had been turned over by local police, what investigation of Milteer did federal agents undertake, both before and after the assassination? According to Secret Service documents published by Harold Weisberg in 1971, the Miami office of the Secret Service closed its file on Milteer on Nov. 12, 1963--three days after Milteer had talked to the informant and nine days before the assassination! Apparently the Secret Service's pre-assassination investigation was transferred to other offices, but there is apparently no published evidence of what investigation these other offices undertook.

CONTINUED...

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/...



That's the truth. Sorry if you don't want me to write about it.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Dude...
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 03:49 PM by SDuderstadt
Milteer was talking about JFK being assassinated in MIAMI on a totally different date and by a totally different person. Does that sound like an accurate prediction to you?
More importantly, the HSCA looked into reports that Milteer was in Dallas on 11/22 and analyzed the photo said to be of Milteer in Dealey Plaza that day and decisively concluded it was someone other than Milteer. You left that part out. I wonder why.

I already provided the link in post #31, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Milteer also reported to the FBI informant he was in Houston, Fort Worth and Dallas.
Eh, "decisively" is your word, not the HSCA's. Groden, the chief photo interpreter, dissented, as the record shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Dude...
if Milteer knew anything specific, then why was he talking about Miami and someone named Brown??

As far as you trying to interject doubt into the HSCA's conclusions, please read volume 6, pgs 247-254 and note their conclusions about Milteer's hair, facial features and his height. How anyone can claim a difference in height of 6 inches is not "decisive" is beyond me.

Your sloppy research is one of the many reasons I don't take you seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. ''When we die off, no one will talk about these things.''
This is BIG NEWS: Retired FBI agent Don Adams -- an eyewitness to treason -- has stepped forward and said he KNOWS the Warren Commission is a cover-up because Adams' superiors interfered with his investigation. Remarkably, his story has been consigned to the DUngeon and a paper in Ireland, among the 4 returns on GOOGLE News I found. I think the story deserves more attention.



Retired FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy

Suzanne Stratford Fox 8 News Reporter (Akron, OH)
9:44 PM EDT, August 22, 2010

EXCERPT...

One of Adams first assignments was investigating an extreme right radical, with connections to the States Rights Party and KKK named Joseph Adams Milteer. "He was reportedly one of most violent men in the country," said Adams.

One week after completing the investigation, President Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas.

Agent Adams located Milteer in Quintan, Georgia on November 27, 1963, but according to Adams, the Senior Agent in charge would not allow a proper interrogation.

SNIP...

Adams says he is not seeking fame and fortune, rather truth and justice. He wants another commission established to re-investigate what really happened in Dallas before all of the agents and witnesses are gone.

"When we die off, no one will talk about these things." said Adams, "I hope the truth gets told whatever it is."

CONTINUED...



Sorry if my work seems sloppy to you. You should try posting some yourself and see how hard it is to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Dude...
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 06:00 PM by SDuderstadt
simple question: why did Adams wait so long to come forward? Beyond that, can you corroborate his claims?

The problem is you can't even get basic facts right and you believe a "prediction" in which Milteer got the date, location and the shooter's name wrong is somehow remarkable. Oh, but he did get the "shot from a tall building with a high-powered rifle" right, like that had never, ever happened before...I guess snipers had not been created by that time.

Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
59. They're still investigating the Lincoln assassination and gaining new insights ....
but agree that this is important --
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarkChief Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. He didn't say Jack Brown was going to be the shooter
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 07:13 PM by MarkChief
He mentioned Brown as a possibility. He said Brown was "as likely" as someone else to do it.

And let's not forget that if there was a conspiracy, we don't know if Brown did it or not. The major conspiracy theorists (Bugliosi, Horne, etc.) do not speculate on who the shooters were.

Milteer said Oswald would be a patsy.

And the both pro-conspiracy and pro-official often believe the HSCA on the parts that suit them, and disbelieve HSCA in the parts they dislike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. This post is so dumb...
it doesn't require much of a response.

The major conspiracy theorists (Bugliosi, Horne, etc.) do not speculate on who the shooters were.


Really? I suspect Bugliosi would disagree since he wrote a 1600 page book (exclusive of endnotes) throwing the book at Oswald, dude.

Stupid post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarkChief Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I talk about jack brown and you reply that Bugliosi wrote a huge book
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 10:52 PM by MarkChief
I fact-checked you about what Milteer said about Brown. don't get me wrong, discussing the many bad reviews of Bugliosi's huge book would be worthwile in another thread, but you went off-topic here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Dude...
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 11:17 PM by SDuderstadt
we've been through this before and you're dead wrong about Bugliosi.

What I actually said was, "Dude...if Milteer knew anything specific, then why was he talking about Miami and someone named Brown??". Show me where I said Milteer said Brown was the shooter. I'm not going to play your stupid strawman games again.



Don't expect any further responses from me to your new alias, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. I wonder what screenname....
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:04 AM by SDuderstadt
MarkChief will use in his next incarnation. He's already blown through stevedesmond,midwestnerman,30rock and several others I don't even recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #44
60. Please prove that...
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gazeteere Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. The Truth about the ssassination of JFK is clear and obvious.
All you have to do is read this and work backwards, and you will know everything there is to know.


Needless to say, watergate was about serial murder, it was not about a third rate burglary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Yeah...
when I want to determine who actually killed JFK, I always start with John Lennon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. When people lace their posts with words like...
"clear and obvious" it's "clear and obvious" you're about to get pelted with goofy conpiracy theory bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. It's what Somersett reported Milteer saying the day after the assassination.
So far as we know, Somersett is reliable. Here's a link. And, for those interested in learning more about Milteer, a bonus link. Dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Corroborated by what, exactly...
dude?

Do you understand how real investigations work?

I'm also looking for proof of Groden's "dissent", especially after you conflated his role to the HSCA. He was a mere "consultant" to the HSCA, despite his lack of formal training in photography. He was not the chief analyst, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Did you read the article? FBI agent Adams said his boss only allowed him '5 questions' to Milteer.
From the OP:



Retired FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy

Suzanne Stratford Fox 8 News Reporter
9:44 PM EDT, August 22, 2010

EXCERPT...

Agent Adams located Milteer in Quintan, Georgia on November 27, 1963, but according to Adams, the Senior Agent in charge would not allow a proper interrogation.

"I said, 'Boss wait a minute, we have an opportunity to elicit tremendous information from him' and he replied '5 questions and nothing more'."

Years later, while searching the archives Adams learned that Milteer had threatened to kill President Kennedy November 9, 1963, just weeks before the assassination, and that FBI agents had allegedly lied about his whereabouts immediately following threat.

In a tape recording Adams played for Fox 8 News, Milteer tells an informant the best way to get the president, "is from an office building with a high powered rifle."

The informant asks if they are really going to kill President Kennedy and on the tape recording Milteer responds, "Oh yes. It's in the works."

CONTINUED...

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-don-adams-president-k...




Wouldn't a failure to investigate -- on the part of the FBI -- amount to "obstruction of justice"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Dude...do you understand what the term "corroboration" actually means?
You have a single source claim. That single source cannot corroborate himself. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. That's why Somersett made the tape when Milteer outlined the assassination.
That's corroboration.

The point is, FBI Agent Adams wanted to continue his investigation of Milteer, but was directly impeded by his superior. That's obstruction of justice by the Department of Justice in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy. Adams also reports that articles from his investigation are missing and other items have been altered. That makes it hard to get corroboration on every point you raise.

I wish the FBI had continued their investigation. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Dude...
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 11:30 PM by SDuderstadt
This is why I find your "research" so laughable. I'm not asking for corroboration that is what Milteer stated. I am asking for corroboration that he was actually in those cities when he claimed.

It's your inability to follow simple points that makes me discount nearly everything you say. You'd make a terrible detective. I know that is going to rankle your little groupies, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Laugh all you want. There's nothing funny about the assassination of President Kennedy.
As for my "research":

I report what I've found and make clear my sources.
I ask questions about what it means and make clear my opinions.
I don't pretend to know everything and I ask others for their input.
I thank people who correct me when I'm in error.
And I don't tell people who don't agree with me to "shut up."

Can you, sduderstadt, say the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Yeahyeah Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. .
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 11:58 PM by Yeahyeah
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Dude...
You can't even be honest about this. I said your "research" is laughable. I have never, ever said that JFK's assassination was something to laugh about, even though you try to create that impression.

You also try to create the impression that I have told "people who don't agree with me to 'shut up'.".

BTW, I'm not the one who claims anyone who rejects JFK assassination conspiracy theories cannot "be a Democrat". Are you really claiming EMK could not have been a Dem? That's how silly your "argument" is getting.

And, yes, dude...I can "say the same". If you feel otherwise, all you have to do is provide documentation of it. I know that you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Yeahyeah Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. What is your actual height,dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. 9' 11"
Stupid question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Yeahyeah Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. That's a pretty solid number.Are you sure you don't stretch and shrink periodically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. I used to be 10' 5"
and it's still a stupid question. Are you trying to make a point here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 05:04 AM
Response to Original message
90. Second "single bullet"
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 05:06 AM by k-robjoe
Never heard about this before. Apparently a second "single bullet" was found. And Connally wrote about it in his auto-biography.

Also interesting how the people who handled the first "single bullet", later would not identify the bullet presented as evidence as the bullet they handled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. Why, it MUST be true!
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 10:55 AM by SDuderstadt
It has a YouTube video and everything!

Simple and serious question: Do you ever get tired of being taken advantage of?

Did you bother to fact-check this video? I'm betting that you didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Starting up with the quote
from Connallys auto-biography. Is it fabricated? Do you know?

And the quotation of Henry Wade, being interviewed by the Dallas Morning News. Is it fabricated?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. I'm certain neither are "fabricated"....
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 12:40 PM by SDuderstadt
however, Connally had just been gravely injured, so it's probable his recollection might not be 100% accurate. Similarly, the interview with Wade took place 30 years after the event.

All large-scale, catastrophic events, by definition, involve anomalies, conflicting accounts and unanswered questions. That's why you look for whats called "convergence of evidence". The problem with conspiracists (not necessarily you) is that they form their conclusions first, then assume that every anomaly, unanswered question or conflicting account "proves" their conspiracy theory. Think about this for a second. Assemble all the alternate accounts and theories of that day. Why don't they all agree? Hint: for the reasons I cited above. There are far more unanswered questions, conflicting accounts and anomalies in these instances. That's why I have such disdain for conspiracists.

And, no, I am not saying there is no such thing as an actual conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Guess "fabricated" wasnt the right word
But anyway, I dont believe they are "fabricated" either. Neither does it seem to be a fabrication, the part about the people who handled the bullet that Tomlinson found not being willing to identify the bullet being used as evidence, as the bullet they handled...

Nor the part about Tomlinson telling the Warren commission that the strecther that the bullet fell off was not the same stretcher that had been used for Connally.

And maybe this is also correct :

"The Warren Commission's "single bullet," according to all documentation:

there were no thread striations (fine lines etched onto a copper encased bullet tip and/or bullet side casing by clothing threads when the bullet first penetrates clothing threads),

there was no blood,

there was no human matter,

there were no pieces of clothing found on this bullet (...)"

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Single_bullet_theory

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
103. I don't need an FBI agent to convince me...


First assure you haven't had a lobotomy while laughing your ass off of the Warren Commission's fictional description of CE399...

The bullet then allegedly struck and shattered the radius of the right wrist on the dorsal side, then exited at the base of his palm and hit his left thigh just about the knee. The Report then asserts that CE 399 traveled about three inches beneath the surface of the skin, hit the femur and deposited a lead fragment on the bone. Then, sometime later, with a spasm of reverse kinetic energy it spontaneously exited the hole in Connally's thigh and neatly tucked itself under the mattress of a stretcher parked in a hallway of the Parkland Memorial Hospital


The single bullet theory was created by Warren Commission attorney Alen Specter to account for the three shots admitted to by the Commission and the seven wounds to President Kennedy and Govenor Connally. Several Commissioners went on record that they didn't believe in the SBT but evidently didn't understand its importance to the Lone Nut conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #103
108. Baloney
> The single bullet theory was created by Warren Commission attorney Alen Specter to account for the three shots admitted to by the Commission and the seven wounds to President Kennedy and Govenor Connally.

No, the initial assumption was that two of Oswald's shots hit JFK and one hit Connally. The corollary of the SBT is that one shot missed completely. The strongest evidence that the single-bullet theory is correct is that the bullet that went through JFK's neck would have had to hit somewhere inside the car, but no bullet holes were found. Except the one in Connally, that is, who was sitting right in the path of that trajectory, quite unlike the dishonest diagrams such as the one Stone used in his movie.

> Several Commissioners went on record that they didn't believe in the SBT but evidently didn't understand its importance to the Lone Nut conclusion.

That could be because it isn't, since Oswald did indeed fire three shots. The case that conspircists try to make is that the Zapruder film "proves" that JFK and Connally were hit at different times, but too close together for both shots to have been fired by Oswald. No such "proof" can be obtained by making guesses about when either man "appears" to react in that indistinct film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #103
120. CE399: The Hoax of the Century

Very well put MrMickeysMom.

As Jim DiEugenio and Len Osanic discussed last night...

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black489a.mp3

The only logical debate left about the "Magic Bullet" is between whether it was shot into a bucket of water or cotton batting??? Before being placed on the gurney.


http://www.ctka.net/
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #120
130. Those are 2 good links to put some objectivity behind the hoax
Plus, I love the "ignore" button, so whoever said whatever, I probably don't give a shit about what they have to say anyway.

DiEugenio has a goofy laugh, but the books he's reviewed over the years, plus Len's will be linked. Anyone who wants to refer to the most comprehensive stuff to read and educate themselves will have many, many choices.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-10 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #130
131. LOL, of course you love the "ignore" button
How many people do you think haven't figured out why that is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #103
188. FBI Special Agent James HOSTY destroyed evidence: a ''threatening'' note from Oswald.
A couple of weeks before the assassination, Hosty paid a visit to Marina Oswald's residence at the home of Ruth Paine. Hosty was looking for Lee Harvey Oswald, who was not home. Oswald later found out about the visit and stopped by the Dallas FBI office and dropped off a note addressed to Hosty that threatened to "blow up the FBI building" in the words of the secretary who received the note in an unsealed envelope and read it.

Hosty and the FBI never admitted the note's existence until 1975 when the HSCA looked investigated the matter. Hosty said the note was not a threat and, therefore, not material to the case. Investigators believe Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin ordered the note destroyed on direct orders from FBI Director J Edgar Hoover, a couple of hours after Oswald's own assassination while in police custody.

The note was never mentioned to the Warren Commission.

Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice.

PS: Isn't it odd how many people do all they can to disparage those interested in the truth, MrMickeysMom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #188
189. "The trial of Lee Harvey Oswald"
Funny you should mention this. I came across the 1977 TV-series "The trial of Lee Harvey Oswald", and 6 minutes out in this clip theres a scene about something I hadnt heard about before :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnfaBSB9nEY&feature=rela...

Now your post gives me more information.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #189
396. Oswald had Hosty's telephone number in his pocket when arrested.
Of course, J Edgar Hoover also falied to report that information to the Warren Commission.

What's also telling is how Hosty made a 180 -- first saying Oswald was not a violent person nor a communist to stating the FBI had the guy pegged as a commie capable of murder.



James P. Hosty

EXCERPT...

About two weeks before the assassination, Oswald delivered a note to Dallas FBI office at 1114 Commerce Street and left it for the receptionist to give to Hosty when he got back from lunch, which she did. Apparently Hosty told the head of the Dallas office of the FBI, J Gordon Shanklin, about the note on the afternoon that JFK was assassinated. The FBI said in October 1975, when the existence of the note came to light that the note read "Let this be a warning. I will blow up the FBI and the Dallas Police if you don't stop bothering my wife." According to Hosty, the note said something like "if you have anything you want to learn about me, come talk to me directly. If you don't cease bothering my wife, I will take the appropriate action and report this to the proper authorities." Shanklin instructed Hosty to destroy the note about two hours after Oswald had been shot by Jack Ruby, saying as he handed the note to Hosty, "Oswald is dead now. There can be no trial. Here, get rid of this". Hosty destroyed the note by tearing it up and flushing it down a toilet.

According to a "Harry Dean", a former agent of both the FBI and the CIA, the note was a message from Oswald about the assassination plans. Shanklin has denied all knowledge of the note, despite confirmation from other office members that he had actually handled it. Hosty has suggested that the order to destroy the note came from FBI headquarters. In 1978 he said of the Congress Assassinations Committee, "I am the one they are afraid is going to drop bombs - if they are going to try to contain this like the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Warren Commission, they don't want me there."

Hosty said he had received no official notification of the motorcade route, but learned about it from a newspaper on the evening of November 21st. He had known Oswald was employed at the Texas School Book Depository since November 4th 1963, but didn't feel that Oswalds employment there was significant. According to author Jim Bishop, Hosty's opinion was that "Oswald was not a violent person; he was never seen with firearms; never walked a picket line; never wrote hate letters to newspapers; he never even went to a motion picture: he represented no physical danger to anyone."

On November 22nd, Hosty saw JFK from the kerb at 12:24, then went into the Alamo Grill for lunch, where a waitress whispered to him that shots had been fired from the School Book Depository. He hurried back to his office but was ordered out again and told to go to Parkland Hospital. As he arrived there, he was ordered to return to the office immediately and go over the Dallas files to see if he could find any leads. It seems that Oswald still did not come to his mind as a possible suspect. When Oswald was arrested at 1:50, he had a piece of paper in his pocket with Hosty's telephone number on it, but this information was omitted from the FBI's report to the Commission.

Hosty's immediate report to Shanklin when they heard that Oswald had been arrested for killing JD Tippit, was that Oswald could not be regarded as a potential cop killer and that he wasn't even a member of the local Communist Party. He knew this because the FBI had an informant in the Party.

At 2:30, the interrogation of Oswald began in Room 317 of Dallas Police Department in the presence of Hosty and Forrest V. Sorrels of the Secret Service. Apparently Oswald seemed relaxed until Hosty entered, when he became uncomfortable. At 2:50, according to a sworn statement, Jack Revill, a lieutenant in the Criminal Investigation Section of the Special Service Bureau, met Hosty in the basement of the City Hall. He was told by Hosty that Oswald was a member of the Communist Party and that the FBI had information that he "was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy."

SOURCE:

http://www.cdo.co.uk/jfk/wiki/index.php?title=James_Hos...



The conspirators really went out of their way in the minutes and hours after the assassination to paint a case for war with Cuba and the USSR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
109. Well of course.....
Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. What idiot, after planning and succeeding at such a horrendous crime, would stand up on TV and then claim to be a patsy and not take credit for the kill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. Someone who thought he...
wouldn't get caught. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 04:59 AM
Response to Original message
111. "The case for conspiracy"
Its been a couple of years since I first got interested in the JFK assassination.

So I never saw this video online until now.

"The case for conspiracy"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=844030292520648...

The part with all the doctors telling about the headwound is the most extensive Ive seen. Starting 50 minutes out.

( Theres also a part 2, which I havent seen yet :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-75347460518699... )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #111
121. Part 2
Im watching part 2 right now. And at 25 minutes out, theres a videoclip where you see what looks very much like a man in the window that Oswald is supposed to have shot from, just as the limousine passes on the street below.

Problem is, the man is standing. It just doesnt make sense that Oswald would be standing up straight at that point. Then he would have to be fast as lightning to get into a shooting position by the time of the shots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #111
139. Charles Crenshaw
53 minutes out in this video, Dr. Charles Crenshaw tells the same story as the others about the headwound. ( And he also tells about the wound in the throat being a wound of entrance. )

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-22386500082847...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #139
399. Robert Nelson McClelland


The Day Kennedy Died

BLOOD TIES: Dr. McClelland cleaned the suit he wore when he helped try to revive JFK, but the blood-stained shirt he left unwashed.


In crumpled white coats filled with folded papers and stethoscopes and the various tools of the third-year medical student, they file into a cramped office. The walls are lined with books. Andrew Jennings and Jeff Konnert sit at opposite ends of the leather couch while Scott Paulson takes the leather chair. They face a 79-year-old man in a crisp, bright white jacket. Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland, not a large man, has thick glasses and tufts of white hair that match his coat.

This is the students second meeting with the old doctor. He offers them soda and coffee. They are scheduled to talk about pancreatic surgery. Instead they will receive a lesson in living history. When they leave, one student will refer to this hour as the most fascinating conversation of his life.

As they get settled, ready to hear about surgical manipulation of the biliary tract, Jennings notices a magazine on the coffee table. From the cover, it appears the entire magazine is dedicated to conspiracy theories revolving around the John F. Kennedy assassination. Six floors and 44 years separate the place where they are sitting from that moment in November 1963 when the president of the United States was carted into the emergency room in a condition witnesses would later describe as moribund.

Andrew points to the magazine. Were you here when they brought him in? Yeah, I helped put in the trache, McClelland says matter-of-factly. The students gasp, as if the old East Texas doctor had put an ice-cold stethoscope to their chests. With no hesitation, McClelland continues, So youre here to talk about the pancreas

Whoa! Whoa! one of the three students interrupts.

Is there any way you could tell us what happened? asks another.

We can read a book about pancreatic surgery, but this

Well, I feel like a broken record, McClelland says. Ive probably told this story 8,000 times.

They plead with him.

He leans back in his chair, behind a desk covered with stacks of paper. He nods slowly. His eyes close for a moment as he transports himself back to that fall afternoon, just two days after his 34th birthday. The day that JFK died.

It was a little after noontime, he tells them. Everyone knew the president was in town that day. McClelland was in a second-floor conference room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, showing a film of an operation for a hiatal hernia to some of the residents and students.

He begins the narrative hes told so many times. I heard a little knock on the door, McClelland says. At the door was Dr. Charles Crenshaw. He asked McClelland to step into the hall for a moment. When he returned, McClelland turned off the projector and left the students. The two doctors moved immediately to the elevator.

Great DU thread on the subject
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
119. Sliding across the trunk of the limousine
I came across this video clip that I found interesting. Three minutes out, you can see an object sliding across the trunk of the limousine.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=908394613389939...

Then I saw the videoclip recorded from the opposite angle, and I realized that the object must be a scarf or something. Maybe a glove.

So I didnt give it any more thought.

But then today I watched this video :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-75347460518699...

And 16:28 out in this video you can see that the ( "big" white ) object must indeed be a scarf or glove or something, but you can also see two or three smaller "objects" that slide down the trunk of the car before the scarf/glove. And its these two or three "objects", that make Jaqueline get up to crawl out on the trunk of the car. ( And when she does, the scarf/glove slides out onto the trunk. )

Do you guys see the same thing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #119
420. It's a reflection. If you map the speed of the car to the movement of the object it appears to....
...match exactly. It also has no Z-depth, but follows the contour of the car and stretching out impossibly long for any of those things.

Not a bad catch but a red herring it would seem.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
133. Helmer Reenberg
The work of Helmer Reenberg ( Denmark ) is simply great.

His site is :

http://www.youtube.com/user/HelmerReenberg

If you scroll down in the upper right corner, youll find the part about the assassination. 27 video clips. I have watched the first four of them. Great work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #133
135. The railroadworkers on the tripple overpass
The eight clip ( The railroadworkers on the tripple overpass ) is further evidence. Backing up what all the doctors say. When you think youve seen it all, you realize... theres more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #135
136. Dude...
do yourself a favor. Read Bugliosi's book, rather than immerse yourself in CT bullshit and you'll realize how hopelessly confused and disjointed the "Oswald was just a palsy" narratives truly are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. Bugliosi
Ill have to read his book. But off course Bugliosi cant tell the witnesses who were there, what they saw ( or heard ).

And he cant tell the doctors what they saw.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. Read the book and...
you'll see that CT websites dishonestly omit information and facts that disprove their claims. It's a classic case of confirmation bias, cherry-picking and stacking the deck all rolled into one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. I get your point
But I still say he cant tell the doctors what they saw.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #140
141. Yeah, but you're ignoring what other doctors saw...
that's why you should rely on "convergence of evidence". I bet you could take nearly any criminal case in which there is literally an open and shut case and find plenty of conflicting accounts. That's why we have detectives, evidence labs and trials.

Seriously, you are mystifying this case. Read Bugliosi's book and I'd be willing to bet you'd come away convinced of Oswald's guilt. About the only remaining question would be whether anyone else (non-shooter) might possibly have been involved, but the evidence shows that to be highly unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #141
142. Bugliosi
Ill have to order it from the library, to see what the other doctors said.

Unless theres something about it online. Any doctor at Parkland who saw that the throatwound was a wound of exit, or described the headwounds differently than the doctors in the video clips I have linked to, would be interesting to read about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. If you believe that the wound in JFK's throat was anything...
other than an exit wound, you're going to have to explain where the bullet went.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #143
145. Bullet
I see your point. That is of course a problem. It would have to be a bullet that didnt pass through the body. Same thing with the bullet that hit the back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. But, we know from the x-rays that...
no bullet remained in his body.

CONVERGENCE OF EVIDENCE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #146
147. Bullets
I have seen it suggested that it would be possible to shoot out "ice-missiles", that would melt, and leave no bullet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #147
148. You do realize that both JFK and Connally...
had bullet fragments in their bodies, right?

Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #148
149. Headwound
JFK had bullet fragments from the bullet(s) to the head.

Did he have bullet fragments in the torso? From a bullet that didnt even have the marks on it that you would find on any bullet that had passed through clothing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #149
150. This is getting absolutely silly...
this is what I call having a "oh, yeah? Well, what about THIS?" "debate" with someone who doesn't understand Occam's Razor.

I'll end my part by encouraging you to read Bugliosi's book, but I rather doubt you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. Silly
I have this problem all the time with the JFK-assassination. That it seems silly and improbable either way you look at it.

So I look for whats less improbable. And faking the X-ray photographs is in my view a possibilty here.

Considering the clip with the doctors seeing the autopsy photos of the back of the head, saying this is not at all what it looked like.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #151
152. Nevermind...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #151
154. Heh
Are you really trying to have an honest discussion? On this forum, with that one?

Good luck. I wish you the best, k-robjoe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #154
158. Oh but it is
an honest discussion. And SDuderstad has got valid points.

Saying that there were two bullets making the wounds in the throat and in the upper back, I get into a lot of problems. And I did a lousy job explaining my thinking about it.

But the starting point was the doctors, that is, the ones I am said to be ignoring. And so I asked about doctors at Parkland who gave a different description of the wounds. If I had just not mentioned the wound to the throat, but asked about the headwound, it would be harder to ignore the question. But instead I was silly, and mentioned the throat wound, and so my question was ignored.

But I find its an honest discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #158
161. Maybe you should stop...
shooting your mouth off, BeFree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #150
162. Yes
Yes, the ice-missile theory is silly.

Heres what makes me think theres two bullets involved :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzhKy-O4T4

--------

"According to this FBI report, a bullet hole was found below the shoulder and two inches to the right of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger."

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_S...

And theres also this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjcLtPsOML8&feature=rela...



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. Forgot one thing
"Autopsy photographs of the interior of JFK's chest, which might have shown the bullet's path or lack of same, have never been seen and are supposedly non-existent. No attempt to find them, or account for them has ever been undertaken, despite the testimony of Dr. Humes who stated:

" I distinctly recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper portion of the thorax illuminated. What happened to the film, I don't know." "

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/chapter4.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #163
230. However, both the neck wound and right shounder wound had NO OUTLET ....
they were repeatedly probed at autopsy by Finck/? and neither the neck wound

nor the wound in JFK's right rear shoulder blade had an outlet --

Further, the should wound was made at a 45 degree downward angle!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #162
164. Where'd the "other bullet" go, then?
You really need to read Bugliosi's book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #164
165. I dont have the answer to that
Sad to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #133
153. Secret Service
This is the part about the Secret Service agents in the follow up car, and what they reported :

http://www.youtube.com/user/HelmerReenberg#p/c/C3508F37...

It seems like anywhere you look in this case, theres just lots of the "cherry-picked" witnesses. :)





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #133
166. Shell casings
This information about the shell casings was new to me :

http://www.youtube.com/user/HelmerReenberg#p/c/C3508F37...

Theres just no end to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
134. "Posterior scull"
Its been a couple of years since my last wave of interest in the case.

I remember that I was pretty flabbergasted by this video clip, about an autopsy photo of Kennedys scull :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec

Now I find that parts 2, 3 and 4 are also online. Heres the link to part 4, with an elaboration on the autopsy photo :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_O1rS7YKsY&feature=chan...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #134
155. It is not surprising
that someone who cannot spell a simple word like "skull" would be flabbergasted by that video.
Are you also amazed how the sun pops up every morning seemingly out of nowhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. Skull, skull, skull ....
Im Norwegian. English isnt my native language.

So thanks for the correction on the spelling of *skull*.

And for being so nasty. Very original. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. you're welcome
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 02:36 PM by zappaman
unfortunately, I can't make you stop believing every silly video you see on the internet
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. Try argumenting
You would have to try argumenting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. ok
I will try argumenting
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
144. Imposter
I just came across this article about the Oswald-imposter that turned up in Mexico city some months before the assassination.

-------------

"... a transcript of a phone call between FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and the new President Lyndon Johnson. This call occurred at 10:01 AM on the morning of November 23, 1963, less than 24 hours after the assassination, while Oswald was still alive in a jail cell in Dallas. The most explosive portion of this transcript is reproduced below:

LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

Hoover: No, thats one angle thats very confusing, for this reasonwe have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswalds name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this mans voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.<1>

Tapes of Oswald calling the Soviets not matching his voice? But hasnt the CIA declared since the beginning that these tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, leaving only transcripts as evidence on November 22, 1963? When the above LBJ-Hoover conversation was first revealed a few years ago, many assumed that Hoover was being typically loose with his facts. But last November, Newman presented a good deal of evidence which corroborates Hoovers astounding statement that the taped calls did indeed survive the assassination and were listened to by FBI agents. Some of this comes from the Lopez Report, the long-suppressed House Select Committee on Assassinations staff report on Oswalds trip to Mexico City. More still comes from newly released FBI materials, some only available for the first time last year. The Lopez Report excerpted a memorandum from FBIs Belmont to Tolson on 11/23/63, which states:

..Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,..<2>

Also in the Lopez Report is the following excerpt of a memo from Hoover to Secret Service Chief Rowley on 11/23:

..The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual indentified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald..<3>"

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenM...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
167. Fireworks / Braden / Dal-Tex
"FBI DOCUMENT 4/6/77, 62-109060-7699: Informant related that Ruby contacted him and asked if he would 'like to watch the fireworks.' He was with Jack, standing at the corner of the Postal Annex Building facing the TSBD at the time of the shooting. According to informantimmediately following the shooting Jack took off toward the area of the Dallas Morning News."

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/jack_rub...

I dont know any more about this. If it actually happened.

But when you learn about Jim Braden, being arrested in the Dal-Tex building, the two reports seem to fit together.

About Jim Braden, three and a half minutes out in this clip :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&p=E77DAC7C7F...

And also, the bullet that struck Tague... It makes no sense coming from the sixth floor of the School Book Depository. But from the third floor of the Dal-Tex building it makes sense. It lines up. A near miss from there lines up with hitting the pavement in front of Tague.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #167
168. With all due respect....
rather than keep seeking answers from whatever CT resource strikes your fancy, why not simply read Bugliosi's book and get answers to your questions?

Ruby's whereabouts at the time of the assassination have been repeatedly corroborated and he most certainly did not witness the assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #168
169. I thought I had seen something like that
But as I understand it, Jim Braden was arrested, trying to sneak out on a freight elevator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. With all due respect...
you could choose any large-scale catastrophic event and, within a day, I could work up an impressive laundrylist of conflicting accounts, anomalies and answered questions without breaking a sweat, and that's for cases that could be considered "open and shut".

Ever heard of all the amazing coincidences between the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations? Same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. No doubt
No doubt you can. And also in this case, theres a lot of coincidences that point in different directions. So I cant say this is what happened, or this is what happened. Its more like theres a few things that you feel you can say for sure didnt happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #171
173. Well, then...
if you understand that, why do continue to accept them uncritically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. I dont
I dont accept anything uncritically. If youre talking about Arnold Rowland ( that I just posted about ) Im not accepting it uncritically. Its not like Im saying, this is it, there can be no doubt that there were two men up there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #174
175. Well, then...
what is the point of posting them, if you don't necessarily believe them? Where are you going with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. Degrees
I dont know if thats the word used in english, that theres *degrees*.

If you accept something uncritically, you cant speak about *degrees*.

Im not accepting things uncritically, and posting about the different things here, is a part of the process ( thinking them over ).

( and also seeing connections )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. Connections to what?
Are you bothering to fact-check them? If you're not, then you ARE accepting them uncritically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. Getting feedback
Getting feedback is part of the process. Getting critique.

You ask : Connections to what?

Its about connections like first hearing Roger Craig tell about what he was told by Arnold Rowland. Then the clip with the TV-interview with Arnold Rowland comes along. And then the clip in "The case for conspiracy" comes along, with the firgure in the window. ( Wrote about it in post 121 / 111. )

That sort of connections.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #178
179. Do you realize that people often see connections which...
simply aren't there? Do you think fact-checking ought to play a role in "connecting the dots"?

You do realize that there's a reason why some people embrace conspiracist y theories, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #179
180. Connections that just arent there
Edited on Tue Sep-07-10 06:44 PM by k-robjoe
The connection doesnt make it a fact. Get me right, Im not saying ; this is it, there is no doubt. Im saying that Im connecting these things.

Because there is a logical connection there. It doesnt make it a fact.

I talked earlier about *degrees*.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #180
181. Wait a minute...
Do you understand the role of facts (soundness) in logic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #181
182. Yes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #182
183. I don't think you do based...
your statement about things being logically connected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #183
184. Then there must be
a problem with me writing in english. I dont get my point through.

It is connected, like if you have A saying he heard a shot from the grassy knoll, and you have B saying he heard a shot from the grassy knoll.

The two are connected. Theres a connection. And if you hear that also C says he heard a shot from the grassy knoll, his testimony enters that connection.

But it doesnmake it a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #184
185. Where are. you going with this? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #185
186. So you got my point then?
I think you allready asked me where Im going, and I answered that its a process of thinking through things, and getting feedback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. Based upon a bunch of goofy assassination CT bullshit in...
Edited on Tue Sep-07-10 07:35 PM by SDuderstadt
YouTube videos.

This won't end well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-10 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
172. Two men in Dallas / Arnold Rowland
Just after the assassination, Roger Craig spoke with Arnold Rowland, who told him that some minutes before the shots, he and his wife saw two men ont he siwth floor of the School Book Depository. One was a black man, with a rifle. ( Rowland pointed out the men to his wife, and assumed they were from the Secret Service. )

Here is the episode of "Two men in Dallas" where Roger Craig tells about this ( 8 minutes out ) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyvRfeLDsB4&feature=rela...

Now I came across a clip with a TV-interview with Arnold Rowland :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y9_d9L6NOU&feature=rela...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #172
378. Amos Euins
"G. James Robert Underwood, assistant news director at Dallas station KRLD-TV, was in the motorcade, passing just in front of the School Book Depository when the shots rang out. He thought at least two of the three shots came from the building and left the open news car to grab a camera from a colleague. After going to the grassy knoll and the railroad yards, Underwood moved to the front of the School Book Depository where he overheard Amos Euins being interviewed. Three weeks after Euins testified, Underwood appeared before Warren Commission counsel Joe Ball in Dallas:

UNDERWOOD. He was telling a motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle .... I went over and asked the boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man. I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir," and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice." 6 H 170)"

http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam3.htm

But the FBI didnt want any black man on the sixth floor :

"The following day, however, Rowland decided to tell a pair of FBI agents who visited him at home about the elderly negro but 'they just the same as told me to forget it now' (2H183). He says that he mentioned the negro to no less than six different pairs of FBI officers who interviewed him about the case in the following weeks, but encountered complete disinterest. (2H184-85)"

http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/custom.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #378
379. John Powell
"Those witnesses who corroborate Rowland on this point include Carolyn Walther, Toney Henderson and John Powell, an inmate of a sixth floor cell in the County Jail directly opposite the TSBD who says that he saw the two men fiddling with the scope of a rifle."

http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/custom.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #379
412. Gee. Lots of Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
190. Fabricating evidence
Theres a lot of fuzz here in Norway right now, about possible fabrication of evidence in the trial of Arne Treholt in 1985.

Treholt was sentenced for giving secret information to the KGB.

Now theres a lot of fuzz, because the "money evidence", a photo of Treholts suitcase, containing a big sum in dollars, seems to have been taken after his arrest, and not as the police claimed, a few months before his arrest.

Four years ago, a former policeman approached a journalist, and told him that the photo was a fraud, taken in police headquarters, after the arrest.

Now other photos have surfaced, that seem to say the same. In the evidence-photo, you can see ( whats left of ) a piece of tape (?) on the suitcase. ( Upper left in this photo. Looking like it was put there to seal the suitcase. )



Now photos of Treholts arrest have surfaced, and the piece of tape isnt there. Problem is, today, in 2010, it is there.

So the only logical conclusion seems to be that the money-evidence photo was taken after the arrest.

Heres a videoclip, if anyones interested. ( In Norwegian though. ) :

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3804856....

Its just interesting how we were pretty certain, that this kind of thing doesnt happen in Norway. Elsewhere, yes, but not here.

And now we get this example from one of the biggest cases in Norwegian criminal history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
211. Lee Bowers
Just no end to it...

Here is a clip about Lee Bowers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcXJJsZs7LE

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #211
212. Yes...
there is no end to the silliness thrown up by the JFK assassination CT, because they really have no effective counter to the physical evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #212
213. The physical evidence points to conspiracy.


Here's an excellent overview: The Death of JFK: Physical Evidence of Conspiracy by Michael T. Griffith.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #213
214. The physical evidence nails Oswald...
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 03:38 PM by SDuderstadt
and Griffith is as big a quack as almost anyone else in the JFK assassination CT "community".

Why don't you take all your physical "evidence" to the Dallas D.A. and see if you don't get laughed out of their office?

47 years, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #214
215. That's what you say. The evidence says something else.
Here's information on President Kennedy's clothing, which shows a bullet hole in his back -- not neck, as Gerald Ford fixed into the Warren Commission record:



And even if it's been 47 years, there's no statute of limitations on murder or treason. That's an odd attitude to express, yours. You said the memory of that awful day filled you with tears, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. It does, dude...
What does that have to do with the question of who killed him? Hint: nothing.

You keep leaving out the fact that the HSCA also said Oswald killed JFK. And your "statute of limitations" argument is as silly AA the rest of your arguments.

Serious question: what excuse do you offer for screwing up this "investigation" for 47. Maybe a better use of your time would be helping O.J. find the "real killers", dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #216
217. You can make fun of me all you want. I don't care. The point is the evidence indicates conspiracy.
The question you raised wasn't who killed JFK? You implied evidence does not point to conspiracy, which is false. The evidence indicates JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Another example:



JFK Exhibit F-294

Photo of 5 bullets fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle: (left to right) the "magic bullet" (CE 399), two bullets fired into cotton wadding(CE 572), a bullet fired through a goat rib (CE 853), and a bullet fired through the wrist of a human cadaver (CE 856).

SOURCE: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDo...

What's critically important about the "single bullet theory" is that the entire Warren Commission report needs it to be true for its claims about a "lone gunman" to be possible. The thing is, there's no reliable chain of evidence linking the bullet found on the stretcher to either President Kennedy or Gov. Connally.



PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAGIC BULLET: E. L. TODD AND CE-399

John Hunt
2006

Warren Commission Exhibit 399 (CE-399) has been called the "Magic Bullet" by critics due to its extraordinarily lithe aerobatics and the structural rigor it maintained after have smashed up dense bones. The dubious nature of the bullet's condition when compared to the feats attributed to it caused early researchers like Josiah Thompson to fix the bullet with a gimlet eye.

The suspiciously intact bullet's bona fides do look good on the first pass. However, closer inspection reveals problems; the participants failed to ID CE-399 as the bullet they handled on the day of the assassination.

I asked myself, Is the bullet sitting in the National Archives today really the same bullet recovered at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the wake of the Kennedy assassination? I decided to put the issue to the test.

Phantom Identification

It was on March 16, 1964 during James Humes' testimony before the Warren Commission (WC) that CE-399 was first introduced into evidence. Arlen Specter related on the record that CE-399's bone fides were "subject to later proof," but would be introduced with the proviso that the bullet was the same "missile which been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally." The fact that Humes was the first witness to testify about CE-399, yet had played no part whatsoever its chain of custody, forced Specter to introduce CE-399 "subject to later proof." Fifteen days later, Specter queried SA Robert Frazier on CE-399's provenance:

    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?

    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

    Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

    Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?

    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners.(3H428)

Frazier established that the CE-399 bullet before him was the same one he'd received from SA Elmer Todd on 11/22/63. But Frazier's testimony that CE-399 was the same bullet handed to him by SA Todd, in and of itself, does not begin to establish whether or not it was the same bullet that actually came off the stretcher in Dallas. Oddly, Elmer Todd was never called to testify before the WC. Nor were SA Richard Johnsen, or chief of Parkland Hospital security and former DPD detective, O. P. Wright, whom both figure prominently in the chain of custody of CE-399.

The WC did call on the employee who actually found the bullet. On March 20, 1964 the WC took Parkland Hospital orderly, Darrell Tomlinson's testimony. That was a mere four days after CE-399 was introduced during Humes' testimony. Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated. Having Tomlinson ID the bullet is the "proof" that would have established that the bullet's bone fides were in order. But that didn't happen. What did happen was that the day after Tomlinson testified, Robert Frazier delivered CE-399 to the WC (See Figure 1).

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm



What's more: When examined, it was found to contain no traces of blood or tissue.

Question for you: Why do you seem to always write what you think? Why don't you post a source or article or link to back up what you say, sduderstadt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #217
219. Dude...
you can post all the links you want, but it doesn't make your goofy bullshit true.

And, I don't need links to point out the huge logical gaps in the flurry of bullshit you post. Here's one you still can't answer.

We know from the surgeon who operated on Conally that his entrance wound was in his back and the initial exit wound was in his chest. Unless you want to argue Connally was shot from the front (I wouldn't put anything past you), given the relative positions of JFK and Conally, how could the bullet have hit Conally where it did without having FIRST gone through JFK? You've never come close to answering that question.

Trying to reason with you reminds me of watching any of the "Pink Panther" movies and chuckling at the aptitude of Inspector Clouseau, except you're far more comical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #219
220. The Zapruder film of the assassination provides direct evidence for conspiracy.


This scholar examined the Zapruder film and reports it is evidence for conspiracy.



The Zapruder Film

Reframing JFKs Assassination


University of Kansas Press
David R. Wrone
November 2003

400 pages, 40 photographs, 22 in full color, 6-1/8 x 9-1/4
Cloth ISBN 978-0-7006-1291-8, $29.95 (t)

It is the most famous home movie of all time, the most closely analyzed 26 seconds of film ever shot, the most disturbing visual record of what many have called the crime of the century.

In 486 framesa mere six feet of celluloidAbraham Zapruders iconic film captures from beginning to end the murder of President John F. Kennedy in broad daylight. The film has become nearly synonymous with the assassination itself and has generated decades of debate among conspiracy theorists and defenders of the Warren Commissions official report. Until now, however, no scholar has produced a comprehensive book-length study of the film and its relation to the tragic events of November 22, 1963.

David Wrone, one of our nations foremost authorities on the assassination, re-examines Zapruders film with a fresh eye and a deep knowledge of the forensic evidence. He traces the films forty-year history from its creation on the grassy knoll by Dallas dressmaker Zapruder through its initial sale to Life magazine, analysis by the Warren Commission and countless assassination researchers, licensing by the Zapruder family, legal battles over bootleg copies, and sale to the federal government for sixteen million dollars.

Wrones major contribution, however, is to demonstrate how the film itself necessarily refutes the Warren Commissions lone-gunman and single-bullet theories. The film, he notes, provides a scientifically precise timeline of events, as well as crucial clues regarding the timing, number, origins, and impact of the shots fired that day. Analyzing it frame-by-frame in relation to other evidenceincluding two key photos by Phil Willis and Ike Altgenshe builds a convincing case against the official findings.

Without fanfare, he concludes that more than three gunshots were fired from more than one direction and that most likely none were fired by alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. If true, then JFKs death was the result of a conspiracy, for the Commissions nonconspiracy conclusion requires a maximum of three shots and one gunman.

CONTINUED...

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/wrozap.html



The thing about Inspector Clousseau: Because he's a good guy, he always wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #220
221. Dude...
why did you duck my question? Hint: because it rips your goofy CT bullshit to shreds.

The Zapruder film shows JFK and Connally reacting to CE 399 at the same time, then it shows that when the fatal headshot struck, JFK', head actually snapped forward before it snapped backward and to the left.

You and your fellow incompetents can conduct "Rohrschach" tests with the Zapruder film all day, but all it demonstrates is your confirmation bias.

47 years, dude. When can we expect a major breakthrough from you and the Keystone Kops?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #221
222. Since you don't supply any sources, I can't call them 'incompetents.' So here's video evidence...
...You can see with your own eyes: Video from Love Field shows Secret Service agent Henry Rybka and another agent ordered OFF the bumper of the President's limousine. Agent Rybka expresses surprise in the still image below. The video shows him actually shrugging his shoulders in a "What the heck?" expression at being ordered to leave the president defenseless in the open car.



Video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/171830/secret_service_jfk /

Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:

"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)

The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.

Not until 35 years later do we learn the truth, though, when the great investigator Vincent Palamara asked the Secret Service agents who were there what happened in 1963:

Agents Go On Record

That's more evidence. As for your opinion of the Zapruder film, here's my opinion: The sudden movement forward and then backward suggests President Kennedy may've been struck twice within a fraction of a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #222
223. Dude...
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 09:49 PM by SDuderstadt
The video of Rybka has no sound. He also has a sheepish grin on his face, because he was ordered to guard AF One. You can make up whatever bullshit you want now and, since Rybka is dead, he can't contradict your bullshit.

As far as your claim that the sudden movement forward and backward of JFK's head being suggestive that he "may have been struck twice in fraction of a second", I don't need sources to debunk that one either.

Simple.question, dude: if he got hit three times, where's the third entrance wound? And, of course, you're still ducking my question about how Connally getting struck where he did WITHOUT it going through JFK first?

Do you think about your silliness before you post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. Where do you get that? Again, no source. Just your opinion. Who cares?
Regarding Rybka:



THE STRANGE ACTIONS (AND INACTION)
OF AGENT EMORY ROBERTS


by Vincent M. Palamara (Copyright 1999)

During the last five years or so, I have often been asked, "What agent or agents are you most suspicious of?" in relation to the tragic events of November 22, 1963. I have always answered: "There are three agents at the top of my list:
Bill Greer, Floyd Boring, and Emory Roberts." My research into Bill Greer1 and Floyd Boring2 has been well covered in the pages of several journals, and in my manuscript The Third Alternative--Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the JFK Murder. However, Emory P. Roberts merits the same scrutiny, if not more so; a look at his role is now in order.

Secret Service agent Emory P. Roberts was a former Baltimore policeman3 (and high school colleague of author Howard Donahue of Mortal Error fame)4 who had recently been on President Kennedy's trip to Florida on November 18, 1963. As he was later to do on the fateful Texas trip, Mr. Roberts served as the commander of the agents in the follow-up car, one of two well-used 1956 Cadillac convertibles that sometimes served as the presidential limousine (an example is provided in JFK's summer, 1963, Ireland trip).5 On both trips, Sam Kinney served as the driver of this car.6 As one of three Shift Leaders of the White House Detail (the other two were Stewart G. Stout, Jr. and Arthur L. Godfrey, both also on the Texas trip with Roberts),7 Emory was a stern and forceful agent who took and gave out orders in a serious manner while working on President Kennedy's trips. It was during the Florida trip that some interesting things involving Agent Roberts occurred which would have a direct bearing on November 22, 1963.

The President visited Palm Beach, Miami, and Tampa on November 18, 1963; however, only the beautiful city of Tampa involved a motorcade, and quite an eventful one at that, as agents Chuck Zboril and Don Lawton were riding on the rear of the limousine, someone from the crowd threw a red "Powerhouse" candy bar at the motorcade, and the confection landed with a "thud" on the hood of the Secret Service follow-up car. Thinking it could be a lethal stick of dynamite, Agent Roberts pushed the object forcefully off the hood. Realizing what the object was, Roberts and the other agents shared a laugh about it.8 But they had had good reason to be jumpy: the atmosphere in Tampa was one that gave the agents cause for concern--hostility from the anti-Castro Cuban community,9 the Joseph Milteer threat,10 and an organized crime related-scare.11 As he had done countless times before, Mr. Roberts had the two agents that were riding on the rear of the presidential limousine "fall back" from time to time (sometimes based on Special Agent in Charge Jerry Behn's suggestion; in this case it was the number two agent, Asst. Special Agent in Charge Floyd Boring). This was quite often a spur-of-the-moment decision based on the speed of the cars, the size and proximity of the crowd, and the potential for threat(s) at the moment12 (often, the two agents of the rear of JFK's limousine took their own initiative in going between the two cars, as agent Clint Hill did several times in Dallas). This will become important later....

Jumping ahead to Dallas on November 22, 1963, (after friendly, enthusiastic, and uneventful motorcades in San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth on November 21-22,1963), Agent Roberts assigned the other seven agents on his particular shift to the follow-up car: Sam Kinney, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, William"Tim" McIntyre, Glen Bennett, George Hickey, and John Ready13 -- four of whom had only hours before participated in the in famous drinking incident in Fort Worth. Mr. Roberts' shift was the worst offender of the three shifts!14 What makes this tragic is that Roberts had the most important shift of all: the 8:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift-- the Fort Worth/Dallas part of the Texas trip (the other two shifts, Agent Stout's 4:00 p.m. to midnight detail and Agent Godfrey's midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift were not actively protecting JFK during the Dallas motorcade. They were all waiting for JFK to complete the motorcade--Stout's detail at the Trade Mart, Godfrey's detail in Austin with Bob Burk and Bill Payne at both the Commodore-Perry Hotel and the LBJ Ranch).

Cover-up number one: Agent Roberts would later write (April 28, 1964) that "there was no question in my mind as to (the agents') physical and mental capacity to function effectively in their assigned duties."15 Like Chief Rowley and Inspector Kelley before both the WC and the HSCA, Agent Roberts covered up the drinking incident, despite Secret Service regulations which stated that this was grounds for removal from the agency.16 Sleep deprivation and alcohol consumption wreak havoc on even the best trained reflexes. While leaving Love Field on the way to the heart of Dallas, destiny, and murder, Agent Roberts rose from his seat and, using his voice and several hand gestures, forced agent Henry J. Rybka fall back from the rear area of JFK's limousine, causing a perplexed Rybka to stop and raise his arms several times in disgust (Rybka would then remain at the airport during the murder, having been effectively neutralized) --although Paul Landis made room for him on the right running board of the follow-up car, Agent Rybka did not budge.17 Although Rybka worked the follow-up in Houston the day before18 and was a gun-carrying protective agent, he was not allowed to do his job on November 22,1963 (Rybka has since died...).

Cover-up number two: Both Emory Roberts and Winston Lawson placed Agent Rybka in the follow-up car in their initial reports, only to "correct" the record later, after November 22, although Rybka was not even mentioned anywhere in Agent Lawson's Preliminary Survey Report--making it seem obvious that he was covering Emory Roberts' behind.19 As the cars approached the Main and Houston Street intersection, Clint Hill fell back to the follow-up car. Agent Hill was the only agent to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas and he was not even assigned to JFK (as a last-minute addition to the trip, Agent Hill was, like Paul Landis, part of Jackie's detail, and came at the First Lady's personal request). John Ready, a relatively new agent, never approached JFK's side of the limousine. Why not? Emory Roberts explained: "SA Ready would have done the same thing (as Agent Hill did) if motorcycle was not a President's corner of car"(!)20 Strange, but this posed no problem at all for Agent Don Lawton on November 18, 1963, in Tampa21 (but unfortunately, like Rybka, Lawton was left at Love Field and was not in the motorcade detail).22 In any event, there was always cooperation between the motorcycles and the agents; they maneuvered around each other countless times, including in Dallas on November 22.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklink.com/articles/EmoryRoberts.html



Palamara cites original sources -- the agents themselves, recorded in conversation, in their own words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #224
225. Dude...
do you think the Secret Service just leaves AF One unguarded? Hint: there are simple explanations for all your goofy questions and silly claims. Why don't you know them? Hint: because you ignore any evidence which contradicts your goofy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #225
226. Both agents were ORDERED off the back of JFK's limousine.
That's what the video shows.

That's what the Secret Service agents said.

Almost forgot: Dunno why you say what you do. That's your business, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #226
227. Dude...
Simple question: do you believe the Secret Service just leaves AF One unguarded when it's sitting on a tarmac? If you were a Secret Service agent, would you rather guard AF One or go with the "boss" on the motorcade?

As far as your "dunno why you say what you do" bullshit, are you questioning my motivation again, dude? Do you think loving who JFK was requires embracing your goofy bullshit?

47 years later and you've still got dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #227
232. Don't be ridiculous, sduderstadt. Roberts ORDERED Rybka and Lawton off JFK's car.


Secret Serive Agent Emory Roberts ordered Henry J. Rybka and Don Lawton off the president's car. If Emory Roberts wanted to leave someone behind to watch Air Force One besides the standard detail already assigned to the jet's security, he could have pulled someone from his car. Unlike the presidential limousine, it was full of Secret Service agents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #232
234. So, now you're claiming the Secret Service was in on it, too?
Dude, is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy, that even YOU won't embrace it?

Your bullshit answer to my question about Connally indicates you'll embrace any ridiculous notion as long as it preserves your ludicrous conspiracy fantasy.

Let us know when you bust this thing wide open. After all, it's only been 47 years, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #234
239. Fume all you want, sduderstadt. It's obvious the video the Secret Service was ordered to stand-down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #239
240. Dude...
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 10:28 AM by SDuderstadt
as you have pointed out, there is no statute of limitations on murder. If I was one of your little groupies, I would be pissed off that you are apparently letting the real killer(s) run around scotfree (assuming they aren't dead by now).

You've had 47 years to blow the lid off this thing. Put your case together and present it to the Dallas DA. After 47 years, what's holding you back (well, besides a total lack of evidence)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #240
244. You act like you've forgotten what this thread is about, sduderstadt -- EVIDENCE from an FBI man.
Remember? Special Agent Don Adams came out and reported how the FBI squelched the Joseph A. Milteer investigation?

Read up and down the thread and you'll find even more evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Don't take my word for it, I've included sources and links -- unlike you, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #244
245. Dude...
47 years. When can we expect a breakthrough? By 2010? By 2020? By 2030? By that year even those who were too young to understand will be in their seventies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #245
250. President Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy, a secret cabal that remains in power.
Why you doubt that is beyond my concern.

For those interested in discussing the subject:



Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project

By SCOTT SHANE
The New York Times
July 12, 2009

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agencys director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

SNIP...

The disclosure about Mr. Cheneys role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector generals report underscored the central role of the former vice presidents office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agencys program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

SNIP...

Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, said last week that he believed Congress would have approved of the program only in the angry and panicky days after 9/11, on 9/12, he said, but not later, after fears and tempers had begun to cool.

SNIP...

A report released on Friday by the inspectors general of five agencies about the National Security Agencys domestic surveillance program makes clear that Mr. Cheneys legal adviser, David S. Addington, had to approve personally every government official who was told about the program. The report said the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program frustrated F.B.I. agents who were assigned to follow up on tips it had turned up.

CONTINUED...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.h...



Oh. And why secret government is bad.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #250
251. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
prove it.
seriously, what are you waiting for?
careful though...they might get you like they got all those others who knew the truth!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #251
255. ''careful though...they might get you like they got all those others who knew the truth!''
How profound.

Now here's something about a person who worked to uncover the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy:



The DEATH of DOROTHY KILGALLEN

A Key Chapter from "Justice For JFK"


by Robert D. Morningstar


On November 8, 1965, Dorothy Kilgallen, was found dead in her apartment shortly after returning from Dallas where she had interviewed Jack Ruby and had conducted her own investigation of the JFK murder during several trips to cover the Ruby trial.

SNIP...

...it is a fact that when Dorothy returned to New York, she told friends that she had discovered that Ruby and the slain Officer J.D. Tippit had been friends. They had been seen together in Ruby's Carousel Club at a meeting 2 weeks before the assassination in the company of Bernard Weissman, who had placed the "JFK-Wanted for Treason" newspaper ad in Dallas newspapers on November 22nd, 1963. Studying the Warren Commission Report, Killgallen deduced that the meeting had also been reported to Chief Justice Warren AND that the identity of "the fourth man",which she had been unable to ascertain, had been reported to Warren as "a rich Texas oil man", as Earl Warren described him in the official transcript.

SNIP...

Kilgallen had told Israel about a very mysterious and sinister player in the JFK assassination to whom she gave the code name "ferret man". From the description of the individual, it is clear that "ferret man" was none other than David Ferrie, another known associate of Jack Ruby involved in gun running, the Marcello mob and other anti-Castro operations from Florida to Texas. At one time, Ruby and Ferrie were co-owners of an airplane.

Nightlife's producer, Nick Vanoff, pleaded with her not to broach the subject on the air. She had arrived at the studio with a folder full of pertinent and explosive notes documents. She kept the folder closed throughout the interview. Vanoff, asked her agent, Bob Bach, to send her "a dozen long-stemmed roses."

On Sunday November 8, Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead, sitting fully dressed, upright in bed, early in the morning. The New York City Police investigated and the coroner found that Dorothy Kilgallen had died from ingestion of a lethal combination of alchohol and barbituates. All her notes and the article on which she had been working to "blow the JFK assassination wide open" also disappeared.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/killgallen.htm



Good luck with keeping your record of futility intact, zappaman. You must be so proud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #255
256. Dude...
is there ANY JFK assassination conspiracy bullshit you don't buy into????

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death4.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #256
259. I don't buy the Warren Commission story or the people who push it, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #255
258. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
What exactly does that PROVE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #258
262.  Why the mini-Dude routine? Do you know anything about Dorothy Kilgallen and John McAdams?
I doubt it, evidence is what it is.

Here's more evidence indicating conspiracy:

John McAdams and Dorothy Kilgallen

Good luck in your future endeavors of keeping your perfect record of futility intact, zappaman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #262
265. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
I know plenty about it.
Used to be almost obsessed in fact.
Then, one day, I went to one of the first assassination conventions in Dallas and i realized that there were literally dozens of theories as to who killed JFK.
And everyone had their own "evidence" to back up their favorite theory.
They can't all be right, can they?
So, I've gone with the one that makes the most sense.
Oswald shot JFK.
But, you are doing a stellar job in your pursuit of justice...you must be very proud.
When do you think you will be cracking the case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #265
271. You certainly do show how much you know, zappaman.
Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #271
275. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
Future generations will look back and wonder in awe at all the time you have wasted chasing imaginary conspirators.
Oop, my bad...no one will even know about your chase.
Good luck solving the case, Sherlock!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #262
266. This is unintentional irony, right?
After 47 years on the case, you have HOW many indictments, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #266
272. So what if it's been 47 years, sduderstadt? I still give a damn.
"That story isn't going to die as long as there's a real reporter alive, and there are a lot of them alive." -- Dorothy Kilgallen

That's why I write about the assassination of President Kennedy, sduderstadt. No matter what you and all the mini-Dudes on DU say, or how much you ridicule, or how hard you try to get me angry -- I want to future generations to know about the evidence for conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #272
273. Dude...
Edited on Thu Sep-23-10 10:40 AM by SDuderstadt
as I already pointed out, the problem with your claim about Kilgallen is that you expect us to believe that the "perps" silenced her AFTER she had already told her story. The "mysterious deaths following the JFK assassination" propagated initially by Penn Jones is no more valid than other stupid lists, such as the "Clinton Body Count List", but it's red meat for you and your little groupies.

Like nearly all conspiracists, you take things which have a smattering of truth to them, then draw totally unwarranted and, frankly, laughable "conclusions". Now, you can think your cause is noble and that, because of you, future generations will know about the "evidence for conspiracy", but the reality is that you are parading around your abject failure. You are just rebunking the same absurd conspiracy theories that have been floating around for decades and have been roundly debunked that whole period of time. Do you really want to go around broadcasting your utter lack of results? Where are the bombshells? Where are the arrests? Where are the indictments? 47 years later, you've got exactly dick. If there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK, you've managed to let the "perps" get away scotfree. Tell me, dude...do you think that's an accomplishment?

However, your most outrageous stunt is to accuse those who disagree with you on the facts and see your goofy conspiracy theory bullshit precisely for what it is - your security blanket, as somehow aiding and abetting the "perps". Boiled down to its essence, what you're saying is "if you reject my goofy conspiracy theory bullshit, you can't possibly have loved JFK". Really, dude? You couldn't convince EMK either and he stated his acceptance of the WCR publicly in his memoir. I dare you to write to his widow and tell her that EMK did not love his brother.

I don't know how things work in your alternative universe, dude, but I wouldn't go around broadcasting 47 years of abject failure. The JFK assassination CT "community" can't even converge upon a person or group of persons that "did it" or even remotely tell us how they supposedly did it. A perfect example is your ludicrous claim that the reason JFK's head snapped forward, then back and to the left was because you believe he was hit by two nearly simultaneous shots from different directions. And, no, I don't need a "source" to debunk the latest shit you just made up. All I need to do is ask the logical question you can't remotely answer: where's the other entrance wound, dude?

If you're going to blow the lid off this thing, would you please get on with it? You wouldn't want your little groupies to know you're a false prophet, wouldya? Moreover, you can pretend to "debate" me all you want, much to everyone's amusement, but I'll ask you one more time to confine it to the facts, or what passes for "facts" in your alternate universe. But smearing me as some sort of traitor to the memory of JFK for having the temerity to point out that you have no case, is just one of your many underhanded tricks. Do you really think you are fooling anyone? You can broadcast your abject failure far and wide for all I care. Just be a man about it and quit trying to lay your lack of success off on anyone but yourself, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #255
274. Dorothy Kilgallen
I never heard abut Dorthy Kilgallen until last week.

I came across a very resent article about her death.

---------

"According to author Lee Israel, Dr. Charles Umberger, director of toxicology at the New York City Medical Examiner's office, privately suspected Dorothy had been murdered, and had inculpatory evidence to prove it. He remained silent, Israel theorizes, because he understood the political implications of the matter and he wanted leverage over Dr. Luke, in an internecine feud. In 1968, he asked a chemist who worked closely with him as his assistant, to use some newly available technology to analyze tissue samples he had retained from Kilgallen's autopsy, as well as the glass from her nightstand. Though Israel interviewed this chemist in 1978, she did not print his name. However, we can now report that he is John Broich. The new tests turned up traces of Nembutal on the glass, but this was not the same as what was found in her blood. The more precise tests on the tissue samples were able, for the first time, to particularize a deadly mix of three powerful barbiturates in her brain: secobarbital, amobarbital and pentobarbital. Broich told Israel that when he gave his findings to his employer, Dr. Umberger grinned and told him to "keep it under your hat. It was big."

In a much more recent interview, Broich elaborated: "There was some talk...whether the body had been moved and a whole bunch of stuff. But I don't know if it was ever resolved. I do remember that things were kinda screwed up. I think things were probably pretty unreliable. I wouldn't trust anything, you know what I mean? When I was , very few of the people knew what the hell they were doing. I was paranoid as hell when I was there. You never knew what was going to happen from one day to the next."

http://www.midtod.com/new/articles/7_14_07_Dorothy.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #250
253. Dude...
are you channelling SLAD? Same confused, disjointed rambling.

Seriously, when are you going to start making some arrests? I don't know how old you are, but, if you stay on your current pace, you'll have to practice handcuffing someone from your walker, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #244
247. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
When are you gonna make a citizen's arrest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #247
249. Way to continue your perfect record of never contributing anything worth reading, zappaman.
You never fail to disappoint. Instead of generating snark at an alarming rate, you might want to add to what DU does. For instance, here's something I bet you didn't know:



GOP Effort to Defund the ARRB

The story broke suddenly in The Wall Street Journal of June 23, 1995. The Republicans in the House were looking for funds to cut from the federal govern-ment's operating budget. The first move was to pass a bill cutting $155,000,000 and eliminating 2,700 jobs from operations of the House and legislative agencies such as the General Accounting Office. Then Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey apparently had their legislative aides go through the White House budget and target agencies they felt were unnecessary and expendable. In the sixteenth and next to last paragraph of the Wall Street Journal story noted above, the reference to eliminating the Review Board appeared. Ironically a quote from Armey in the story read that, "I hope that we can set straight a perception of wrongdoing." How Congress could do this by saving a whopping two million (approximate ARRB budget) from a one and a half trillion dollar budget escapes us. Precisely the opposite effect would occur. But this statement and this effort shows us even more how out of touch our Washington representatives are.

When this story got out and circulated to the members of the ARRB and the research community, a coordinated effort took place to lobby the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. This effort was led by representatives and friends of COPA like John Judge, Dan Alcorn, John Newman, and Washington columnist Sarah McClendon. As a result of this effort, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland sponsored an amendment that restored funding in the House to 2.15 million for the ARRB. The bill was passed and then sent on to the equivalent committee in the Senate led by Sen. Shelby (R) of Alabama and Sen. Kerrey (D) of Nebraska. It was passed there also. The villain in this drama was Rep. Jim Lightfoot (R) of Iowa who originally moved the bill to cancel the ARRB in the House Committee on Appropriations. We understand that the line being sold in the House was that the National Archives could do the equivalent job that the ARRB was doing. We won't comment on the inanity of that obvious deception.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr795-gop.html



Then, again, that's hard to do -- finding information worth knowing.

BTW: I've always wanted to ask you if know anything about Frank Zappa, but going from the level of your discourse I know the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #244
248. Dude...
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 08:34 PM by SDuderstadt
Too bad you couldn't marshal all your "evidence" before Milteer died. If you ever develop a real breakthrough in the case, I'll contribute the handcuffs, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #248
252. Disregarding Joseph Milteer evidence shows you for what you are, sduderstadt.
For those interested in learning:



Predictions of Joseph Milteer

Mary Ferrell Foundation

Thirteen days before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, a man named Joseph Milteer was tape recorded telling Miami police informant William Somersett that the murder of Kennedy was "in the working," that the best means of killing Kennedy was "from an office building with a high-powered rifle," and that "they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off."

Foreknowledge of the assassination, or just a lucky guess coupled with an uncanny understanding of how such things work?

Miami Police notified the Secret Service, and there are indications that an unannounced motorcade in Miami scheduled for later that month was cancelled. After the Kennedy assassination, informant Somersett spoke to Milteer on the phone. Police and FBI interviews with Somersett revealed that Milteer was jubilant, and said that "everything ran true to form. I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle."

The Warren Commission never learned the full truth of Milteer's statements, receiving just a cursory interview report in December 1963 and a somewhat more detailed one in July 1964, late in the Commission's term. But even the later report failed to discuss the recorded statements which the Secret Service received. A more complete version of the story finally reached the public in 1967 in a newspaper article.

The HSCA investiged whether a man photographed standing in the crowd in Dealey Plaza was Milteer - the resemblance is certainly strong. the HSCA's photographic panel determined, based on height calculations, that the man was not Milteer.

Who was Joseph Milteer? He was an organizer for the racist National States Rights Party and the Constitution Party. The latter organization's membership included retired Marine General Pedro del Valle, about whom Drew Pearson wrote in 1961 that del Valle came close to "urging armed insurrection." If Milteer's predictions were indeed based on foreknowledge, then the path to Kennedy's real killers would lead to right-wing segregationists and military extremists, categories which included some very powerful people.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Predictions_o...



The thought you could find this report anything other than of intense interest is also telling, especially seeing how you claim to still be broken up about the assassination and all. Fortunately, I know you've said you take this all seriously, right dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #252
254. Dude....
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 09:36 PM by SDuderstadt
what possible connection is there between mourning JFK and embracing goofy JFK assassination conspiracy bullshit? If you have the goods on Milteer, why didn't you do something before he died?

Hint: Just because someone bragged about wanting to kill JFK, doesn't mean they killed JFK. You need to read a lot more about why the FBI did not regard Somersett as a reliable informant.

47 years, dude. If you stay on your current pace, all the direct witnesses will be dead and you'll able to accuse anyone you want without fear of contradiction.

I'm going to ask you one more time politely to quit smearing my motivation simply because I don't buy your goofy bullshit, dude. EMK didn't buy your goofy bullshit, either. I hope you're not going to start posthumously smearing him too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #254
257. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #257
260. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 10:10 PM by zappaman
but you are right...your posts are funnier than Dude's.
funny in a sad pathetic way, but funny nonetheless.
you must be very proud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #260
263. There's nothing funny about the assassination of President Kennedy, zappaman.
Here's more for mini-Dudes to think about:

Dorothy Kilgallen: The Key Witness

Keep up the perfect record of futility, zappaman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #263
264. Octafish "Logic"...
Kilgallen was murdered after already telling her story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #257
261. More of your twisting and distorting, dude...
here are my words, dude:

In my estimation, you dishonor the memory of JFK with your CT bullshit.



I'm going to ask you politely one more time to drop your despicable tactics, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #261
267. Don't get mad at me, they're your words, sduderstadt. Here're more...
Dude...

Hitler was a despotic dictator who rounded up 6-8 million people (probably more) shipped them off to concentration camps, gassed them to death, then cremated them. I'm sure in your little black and white world, you can equate Bush to Hitler. You're an embarrassment to liberalism in general and DU in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #267
268. Dude....
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 11:03 PM by SDuderstadt
we all despise Bush. Do you equate him to Hitler? Do you find something wrong with what I said? Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #268
269. I'm the one who should be angry, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #269
270. More of your bullshit...
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 11:57 PM by SDuderstadt
dude. I'll take Joe Conason and Herbert Parmet's word over yours anyday. Your "Bush Derangement Syndrome" renders you as ineffective as those who suffer from "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" or "Obama Derangement Syndrome". You make it much harder for legitimate criticism of Bush to have impact because of your sideshow antics. Maybe you could start a male version of "Code Pink".

Actually, if you should be angry at anyone, it should be with yourself for your utter lack of results, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #270
276. More evidence: FBI memo shows George Herbert Walker Bush was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
In the hour of the death of President John F. Kennedy, Texas oilman George Herbert Walker Bush named a suspect to the FBI in a "confidential" phone call. He then added he was heading for Dallas. Lone-nutters and skeptics alike need not take my word for it, that's what Poppy himself reported to the FBI:



Transcription of above:



TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #



BTW: I'd rather be in Code Pink than support the Big Lie, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #276
278. Dude...
Bush LIVED in Houston. Do you think it's unusual for people to have business in Dallas and drive there from Houston?

Do you think this is some sort of "smoking gun" or something?

Shouldn't you be out somewhere wrestling a suspect in the assassination to the ground or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #278
284. Suspicious, considering his dad, Prescott S. Bush, was named among those plotting against FDR.
The White House Coup

What a coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #276
281. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
So, Bush killed JFK?
I met a guy who claims LBJ leapt out of his car, ran across Dealey Plaza and shot JFK with his six shooter.
Another guy is positive the driver of JFK's car shot him.
Maybe you guys can fight it out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #281
283. The mini-Dude act is a winner, zappaman.
Too bad about your record of perfect futility. It's still intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #283
285. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
speaking of futility...how's that investigation into the JFK assassination working out for ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #285
288. Who rules America? How did we get here? Any clue, zappaman?
Here's there's nothing funny about the Kennedy assassination, zappaman.



WHO RULES AMERICA? HOW DID WE GET HERE?

Joan Mellen
Stewart Mott House, Washington, D.C., September 14, 2007.

I like to begin my talks with a mantra. It goes like this. Jim Garrison, district attorney of Orleans Parish, whose investigation into the Kennedy assassination is the subject of my book, A Farewell To Justice, after it was all over and Clay Shaw was acquitted, was asked: how could you ever have believed that you could convict CIA operative Clay Shaw for participation in the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy in a state court in Louisiana?

I guess I thought I was living in the country I was born in, Garrison said.

This line has particular resonance today. Many of us were not born in a country where martial law was legitimized; where the President could countermand any law he wanted to with promiscuous signing statements; where there was illegal government surveillance of citizens accompanied by neither warrants nor probable cause; where what library books you took out could become known to the government; where America, having legalized the use of torture, was defined as a country inevitably pursuing preemptive foreign wars, and where, as in George Orwell's 1984, war was a permanent part of the country's identity. You all know the litany.

It also has become clear even to those in deepest denial that the Democrats are not about to reverse these assaults on the U.S. Constitution. In policy, in principle and in action, the Democrats are revealing themselves as offering no substantive difference from the party in power. Howard Zinn made the point that there was little difference between the two parties in A People's History of the United States, first published in 1980. Zinn's observation is more true than ever today as some people, albeit half-heartedly, continue to be tempted to place their faith in a change of administrations in the hope of reversing the damage to the democratic fabric we have witnessed in the past eight years.

In our continuing attempt to understand when this assault on the Constitution began in earnest, so that in the administration of George W. Bush it accelerated at so astonishing a pace, I would like first to raise the question of whether it is in to fact true that with Bush and Cheney we have seen an inflation of the power of the Executive. Or has the power of the president in fact shrunk so drastically that it is entirely inappropriate to blame Bush for the war, or for the assault on the Constitution? Let me suggest that it is the organ grinder with whom we have to be concerned, rather than the monkey.

CONTINUED...

http://www.joanmellen.net/whorules.html



Oh, almost forgot: Thank you for continuing the mini-Dude act. You're perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #288
289. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
I can only aspire to your record of futility...

Clay Shaw was acquitted in less than an hour.
Garrison most have had a case as rock solid as the one you have!

Here is a partial list of who Garrison believed had involvement in JFK's death
The C.I.A
The F.B.I.
NASA
National Broadcasting Company
Earl Warren
Gov. Rhodes of Ohio
Gov. Reagan of California
Gov. Tiemann of Nebraska
Cuban guerrillas
Dallas Police Department
Robert Kennedy

and on and on and on and...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #289
291. You should write a book, zappaman.
Until then, please don't update your journal. It's quite a nice read now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #270
277. More evidence: FBI memo says FBI briefed ''Mr George Bush" of the CIA on Kennedy assassination.
FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" about the anti- and pro-Castro Cuban communities in Miami the same week of the assassination. Here's the document:



Here's a transcript of the above:



Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



Those who want to learn more about these FBI memoranda should read Russ Baker, author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #277
279. Dude...
How common do you think the names George and Bush are?

I was in a clothing store a few months ago and the guy who waited on me was named, of all things, John Kennedy. Using your logic, JFK didn't really die that day in Dealer Plaza.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #279
286. Poppy Bush tried that one, sduderstadt.
Edited on Thu Sep-23-10 06:34 PM by Octafish
Joseph McBride wrote about it in The Nation. Bush's press secretary said the same thing you did -- there are a LOT of George Bushes in the CIA. Turns out the guy even furnished the home address of one to the media. The guy said he worked on assignment from another government agency at CIA for six months, but he was never briefed about the Kennedy assassination by the FBI.

More on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #286
290. Dude...
I don't know how many times you want to be thoroughly embarrassed in front of your little groupies but, as I have said before, your "research" capabilities are extemely poor.

Unfortunately for you, the Nation maintains an archive with 14 decades worth of articles. Do yourself a favor before you shoot your mouth off again. First of all, the link you provide is not to the Nation; it's some goofy e-mail from "Larry and Jennie". Secondly, do a search in the Nation archives and see if you can find any such article by Joseph McBride on any date, let alone July 16/23, 1988, dude.

Again, this is why you have no credibility here.

P.S. An announcement of sorts. I'm not going to waste any more time on back and forth exchanges with you about your goofy conspiracy theory bullshit. I will, however, comment on your posts, but only for the purpose of engaging others in debate about the goofy things you claim.

No offense, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #290
292. So go in their archive and grab the article, sduderstadt.
It'd be your first contribution to anything worth reading, dude, on this thread. On another sample thread in which you "contributed" anyone doing a content analysis will find scores of your replies and zero things worth reading: You can say that's my opinion, anyway. Anyway, best of luck in your future endeavors, sduderstadt. Looking forward to what my future friendly minders have to "add."



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #292
293. There isn't any such article, dude...
Edited on Thu Sep-23-10 09:29 PM by SDuderstadt
at least not in the Nation or anywhere else I could find. You've been punk'd. It's YOUR claim...don't ask ME to prove it, dude.

This is what you get for not fact-checking your goofy bullshit.

P.S. I found your picture!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #293
294. Back so soon, sduderstadt?
Here's the article, hosted by another website. As a longtime subscriber, I read the article way back then and remember it pretty much the same as it appears there. I'm going to the library in the coming days and will photocopy the hardcopy for my records. Here's the date for anyone else interested:

Joseph McBride, "The Man Who Wasn't There: 'George Bush,' CIA Operative," The Nation, July 16/23, 1988, p. 42

Make sure you get the follow-up article for your records, too, dude:

Joseph McBride, "Where Was George?", The Nation, August 13/20, 1988, p. 117.

For some reason, I can't get them to come up through The Nation's archive search engine, either. When I get a spare moment, I'll write them and report the bug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #294
295. Dude...
that's the same link you provided before, which isn't to a Nation article at all. It's to a goofy e-mail that purportedly "excerpts" McBride's "article".

So, just go ahead and report that "bug". Or, you could just go ahead and admit that the articles either do not exist or, at least, never appeared in the Nation. In fact, when I googled the "article", the only reference I could find was to goofy CT websites.

Maybe this will teach you to fact-check your bullshit before you humiliate yourself. I'll accept your apology when you cannot produce the Nation "article", dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #295
296. Poppy Bush and Oswald's minder, George de Mohrenschildt, were associates, sduderstadt.


Letter from de Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald's friend and entree into Dallas White Russian community.

de Mohrenschildt wrote more to his old friend, then-CIA head George H.W. Bush.

It's not surprising, then, for police to discover complete contact information for Poppy when going through de Mohrenschildt's address book after his suicide.

PS: People who are interested in The Nation article can read it until the archive is available, sduderstadt.

Gee. The casual reader could get the impression that The Nation article doesn't exist, reading your post.

Then again, besides the constant and revealing insults, posting a lot about nothing is all you seem capable of doing, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #296
297. "The casual reader could get the impression that The Nation article doesn't exist...
reading your post."

Of course, the reader can judge for themselves. They can do the search of 14 decades worth of archives of articles, or, they can believe the articles don't appear anywhere there because of a "bug". The attempt at deflection is, of course, predictable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #297
300. Cut me down all you want because The Nation archive doesn't show the articles, sduderstadt.
Anyone who looks up hard copies of the magazines will find them.

Joseph McBride, "The Man Who Wasn't There: 'George Bush,' CIA Operative," The Nation, July 16/23, 1988, p. 42

Joseph McBride, "Where Was George?", The Nation, August 13/20, 1988, p. 117.

This shows you, again, for what you are, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #300
304. That's funny...
Edited on Fri Sep-24-10 09:52 AM by SDuderstadt
"The Nation" archives show other Joseph McBride articles, just not the articles Octafish and "The Web Enquirer" claim. Does Octafish really expect us to believe that "the Nation" archives intentionally or unintentionally omitted the "articles" in question? The even more telling thing is if you simply Google the purported titles of the "articles", the only hits appear to be from...wait for it...CT websites.

Oh, my.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #304
312. I don't know why they don't show up, but they do at Gale Group, sduderstadt.
Gale Group's archived something like 25 million articles since 1980. Here are the articles you say don't exist:

Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "The man who wasn't there: 'George Bush,' C.I.A. operative." The Nation 247.2 (1988): 37+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...


Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "Where was George?" The Nation 247.4 (1988): 117+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...

PS: Don't know why they don't show up on The Nation. Do know you are wrong, again, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #312
314. Your link does NOT...
take you to the articles, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #314
317. They work fine for me, sduderstadt.
Visit here:

http://infotrac.galegroup.com/default

Find your way to the part where The Nation is archived, then go to the dates provided.

Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "The man who wasn't there: 'George Bush,' C.I.A. operative." The Nation 247.2 (1988): 37+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...


Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "Where was George?" The Nation 247.4 (1988): 117+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...
Previous Next

If you don't want to do that, go to a good library and look them up. You'll see they are the same articles as in the original link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #296
298. Y'know...
you're really fucking brilliant, dude.

You produce a note addressed to Bush as chairman of the RNC, a position he didn't even occupy until 1973, TEN YEARS after the JFK assassination and the note mentions absolutely nothing about Oswald. By the time DeMohrenschildt took his life in 1977, FOURTEEN YEARS and FOUR MONTHS after the assassination, why would it have been unusual for DeMohrenschildt to have "complete contact information" for Bush in his address book???

I think you're looking for one of these, dude:



BTW, I slipped for a little bit because your flailing about had me laughing so hard. I'm now returning to the mode where I will just point and giggle at what you say. Let us know how the "Great American Bug Hunt" goes, dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #298
299. Laugh all you want. There's nothing funny about the assassination of President Kennedy.
What's interesting is how often you find time to stop laughing to answer any post critical of George Herbert Walker Bush, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #299
302. More of Octafish's misdirection...
Edited on Fri Sep-24-10 09:33 AM by SDuderstadt
As you can see, one of his underhanded tactics is to pretend that laughing at one of his foibles is, instead, treating JFK'S assassination humorously, when that isn't remotely what I was doing. It's silly and smacks of desperation.

Similarly, it's simply a rhetorical trick to try to take criticism of Octafish's poor research "skills" (which seem to consist primarily of uncritically swallowing everything from JFK assassination CT websites and repeating it without even a modicum of fact-checking), which explains how he manages to mangle facts so badly, and try to bizarrely conflate that somehow into endorsing Bush.. If he has some sort of concrete evidence that Bush was somehow involved in the JFK assassination, the time to have presented it was BEFORE Bush became President or even Vice-President, for that matter.

Of course, in typical Octafish style, he heavily insinuated that I must be some sort of Bush acolyte, simply because I call Octafish on his huge factual errors and his typical "Kevin Bacon "X degrees of separation" nonsense speculation and supposition. Bush did plenty of really bad stuff to excoriate him for (Iran-Contra and the despicable Willie Horton ad, for example) that we don't need to make up shit that Bush simply didn't do. Octafish is a garden variety conspiracist. He makes outlandish claims and allegations then, when pressed for actual proof, offers up half-baked nonsense that would be laughed out of any court of law. The fact that he employs such despicable tactics for our "side" doesn't make those tactics any more palatable or any less despicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #302
306. Don't take it so personally, sduderstadt. I haven't insinuated squat about you.
In every post on this thread, I've demonstrated how the evidence shows President Kennedy was killed by a powerful group or groups -- those who could set up the assassination and those who could cover it up.

Really, it's not about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #306
308. Apparently, Octafish has not bothered to read...
post # 299, even though he is the author.

Of course, he'll do anything to deflect attention away from the supposed McBride "article".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #293
301. Always thought you were into business men, sduderstadt.
Nice photo. And the articles exist for anyone to find.

Joseph McBride, "The Man Who Wasn't There: 'George Bush,' CIA Operative," The Nation, July 16/23, 1988, p. 42

Joseph McBride, "Where Was George?", The Nation, August 13/20, 1988, p. 117



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #301
303. More misdirection from Octafish...
Simple question: why don't the articles show up in "The Nation's" searchable archives? Merely repeating imaginary page numbers or blaming "bugs" doesn't rescue Octafish from his self-constructed dilemma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #303
305. Misdirection is you pushing the lone nut Big Lie, sduderstadt.
You know it, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #305
307. Typical conspiracist rant...
Why can't conspiracists simply accept that not everyone buys their goofy bullshit? Unlike what Octafish accuses me of, I honestly and sincerely believe, based upon the evidence, that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK. Is Octafish so insecure in his beliefs that cognitive dissonance compels him to believe that it's impossible to believe anything other than his goofy bullshit?

Of course, right now Octafish is doing everything he can to deflect attention away from "the Nation" article that does not appear to actually exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #307
310. Here are the two articles from The Nation you say don't exist, sduderstadt.
You ever hear of Gale Group? They've got the articles in their archives of The Nation:

Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "The man who wasn't there: 'George Bush,' C.I.A. operative." The Nation 247.2 (1988): 37+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...


Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "Where was George?" The Nation 247.4 (1988): 117+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...

PS: Hope you get a chance to read them as that's how people learn. In the meantime, my friends at the library are preparing hard copies of these from their collection of back issues of The Nation. I'll post them when I get a minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #310
321. Dude...
Edited on Sat Sep-25-10 12:54 PM by SDuderstadt
I already told you what happens when we click on your links. More of your stalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #305
309. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
It seems that article only exists in your mind.
wait a second....could The NATION be in on it too?
maybe they scubbed it from the website?
your record of futility is something I aspire to, Octafish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #309
311. Here are the articles to keep intact your perfect record of futility, zappaman.
Here are the articles you echo don't exist:

Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "The man who wasn't there: 'George Bush,' C.I.A. operative." The Nation 247.2 (1988): 37+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...


Source Citation
McBride, Joseph. "Where was George?" The Nation 247.4 (1988): 117+. General OneFile. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I...

PS: Is there anything sadder than being someone who's in the wrong's toady, zappaman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #311
313. Dude...
you might want to check those links. They take you nowhere specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #313
315. They work fine for me, sduderstadt.
Try this:

http://infotrac.galegroup.com/default

If that doesn"t work, visit a ggod library.

You'll find the aticles are exactly the same as in the first link I provided.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #315
316. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
That link doesn't work for me either.
Is there some secret password for detectives like yourself?
You flatter me...my futility still has a long way to go to approach your 47 years and counting.
tick
tick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #316
318. You are the perfect echo, zappaman.
Try this:

http://infotrac.galegroup.com/default

If that doesn't work, visit a good lie-bury.

You'll find the aticles are exactly as I said.

PS: Still perfect record, yours, zappaman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #318
319. Here's what we see there, dude....
Enter the following information so that we may authenticate you.
If you are using your library ID barcode or other ID for remote access,
enter that information in the PASSWORD field.

Username
Password


Important User Information: Remote access to Cengage Learning databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions who access from remote locations. Such remote access is limited to non-commercial purposes. Remote access from a non-subscribing institution is not permitted if done for cost reduction or avoidance at that institution. For additional information, please reference the Copyright and Terms of Use link below.

Please see your librarian, teacher, or system administrator for your username
and password. Username and password are case sensitive.


Now, it's possible that this isn't a stall from you or it could be just your way of saying you provided it when you really didn't. The most interesting thing is how it is not indexed in "the Nation" archives and how a Google search does not return any hits. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, given the circumstances so far, why would you expect anyone would believe the "articles" actually exist? More importantly, however, is why you kept claiming the initial link was to the "Nation" article itself when it clearly didn't and went, instead, to the "Web Enquirer".





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #319
324. That's all you've ever been, sduderstadt -- a waste of time.
The excerpts from the article online are verbatim from the original. If you're too lazy to register at Gale and read them, you're too lazy to go to the library and read them. I went through the trouble to find them online for you. In thanks, you manufacture confrontation in order to waste my time and other people's time. Wasting other people's time seems like a speciality for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #324
327. Dude...
Edited on Sun Sep-26-10 11:45 AM by SDuderstadt
1) I already showed you where your link goes. It's obviously some sort of subscription based service (apparently through the state of Michigan). Anyone going to your link is going to land on an authentication page and, if they are not a subscriber, that's all the further they are going to get. For you to pretend differently is either a result of some sort of cognitive impairment on your part or is part of a deliberate ruse. I'd be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you weren't being so obstinate about the whole thing.

2) As I previously pointed out, the "Nation" maintains a full archive of 14 decades of articles, with no disclaimers about any time periods or types of articles. You admitted that even you found the "articles" do not appear in the "Nation's" archives in a prior post.

3) You represented the link you first provided as going to the McBride "article" but, as I discovered and pointed out, in reality, it actually went to some page on some goofy and dubious website called the "Web Enquirer". Now you keep yammering that we should accept that what is cited there are "verbatim excerpts", yet we have no way of confirming that because you have yet to provide the actual articles.

4) Similarly, a Google search turns up other articles by McBride, but nothing remotely like the articles you claim. The only "direct" hits appear to be to CT websites that "cite" the same "verbatim excerpts" of the McBride "article" without linking to it directly. I suspect what actually happened is that one goofy CT website either mistakenly and sloppily cited what it believed to be the McBride article or outright fabricated it and it found its way into the vast CT "echo chamber" when other equally dubious CT websites didn't bother to do any fact-checking or verification that the "article" even existed.

Now the question remains as to whether your cognitive abilities are so poor that you honestly don't recognize that you still have not provided the "article" or this is just more of your tapdancing trying to avoid embarrassment in front of your little groupies. Seeing as how the "article" does not appear in the "Nation's" archives and a Google search does not return any hits on such an article, I'm opting for the tapdancing choice.

Your games are getting really tiring, dude. Speaking of games, did you ever find a post of mine in which I accused you of lying? You didn't?

P.S. I slipped up again and responded to you directly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #327
329. ''There isn't any such article, dude... '' are your words, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #329
330. Why did you leave the last of the sentence out...
dude? I went on to say, "at least not in the 'Nation' or anywhere else that I could find". Funny how that changes the meaning of the sentence when you leave that part out. Was that deliberate, dude? That would match the M.O. of conspiracists...clipping quotes combined with quote-mining to make it appear that someone said something different.

BTW, are you citing that as "evidence" of me accusing you of "lying". You do, of course, realize that I am merely saying that I don't believe you, based upon my own research, right? That is not the same thing as accusing you of lying. I could even say that you made a false statement, but that is still not the same thing as accusing you of lying. You do realize that all lies are, by definition, false statements, but that all false statements are not lies, right? I have repeatedly stated that I think you honestly believe your goofy bullshit.

You ought to knock off the false accusations, dude. Oh, yeah, and provide evidence of the McBride "article" rather than tapdance like your life depends upon it. It's really comical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #318
320. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
Your perfect record of futility(figured out who killed JFK yet?) remains intact.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #320
325. Interesting how you continue to say the same thing and get the same results, zappaman.
Which is to say: You contribute nothing, keeping your perfect record as a zero intact.

To add to this thread on FBI Agent Don Adams' new revelations concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, I prefer to use the opportunity to communicate on DU to point what we know about facts that demonstrate a conspiracy was responsible for the crime that continues to shape our nation:

Murder in Dealey Plaza: A Review.

Why you don't want to learn about that is your business, not mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #219
231. Kennedy hit / Connally hit
I see what you mean, but if you have more than one guy with a rifle, then you can have Kennedy and Connally being hit by two separate bullets at more or less the same time.

( A bullet passing over Kennedys right shoulder, and hitting Connally in the back. )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #231
233. Sorry, dude...
If you look closely at where the bullet hit Connally and the angle it hit that accounts for Connally's multiple wounds, it would have had to strike JFK precisely where it did. Research Dale Myers' work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #233
235. The angle
Connally was in the process of turning back when he was hit. There is no way one can tell exactly how much his torso was turned at the moment when the bullet struck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #235
236. Zapruder film, dude...
We can tell an incredible amount because Zapruder unwittingly filmed the assassination. I'm not sure your personal incredulity can be overcome but, at least review Dale Myers' excellent work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #236
237. Zapruder
You cant tell from the Zapruder film, exactly when Connally was hit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #237
238. Yes, you can...
Look at the work of Failure Analysis Associates. Their photographic analysts all pinpoint the time Connally was hit independently of each other, all noting that Connally's jacket lapel violently flared out (hint: from the bullet).

You seem determined to not believe it could've been Oswald acting on his own. If you're not open-minded, there is no point in continuing this "conversation".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #238
241. The lapel
I dont really see that this is evident. It does not have to be a bullet that makes the lapel flap.

But lets say it was. Then you believe it is proven from the angle of the wound that the bullet must have gone through Kennedy, and not some ten-fifteen centimeters higher and to the right.

To me that doesnt make sense. What makes sense, is that a bullet hitting Kennedy at that point, would not have exited from the throat. It is so obvious that even the people defending the single bullet theory involuntarily demonstrate the fact for us. See this videoclip :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjcLtPsOML8&feature=rela...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #241
242. Dude...
as I stated earlier, you seemed determined to not believe that it was Oswald and that is your right.

However, has it ever occurred to you that if everything was as "obvious" as you claim, someone would have assembled it into a case, presented it to the Dallas DA and someone would have been indicted by now?

I'm done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #242
243. "Everything as obvious as I claim" ?
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 10:55 AM by k-robjoe
I have not claimed that everything is obvious.

But there is one thing I said seems to me to be obvious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #217
246. Wounds Ballistics Tests (1964)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #211
229. One of the most compelling witnesses ... Lee Bowers .... and ...
ALL of this makes clear why the subsequent murders and the cover up are so necessary

to keep going --

No such thing as a perfect crime!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #229
400. Lee E. Bowers reported what he saw...
From Spartacus:

Lee Bowers was born in Dallas in 1925. He served in the US Navy during the Second World War. On his return to the United States he attended Hardin Simmons University and Southern Methodist University. After finishing his education Bowers he worked as a self-employed builder. Later he was employed as a signalman by the Union Terminal Company.

On 22nd November, 1963, Bowers was working in a high tower overlooking the Dealey Plaza in Dallas. He had a good view of the presidential motorcade and was able to tell the Warren Commission about the three cars that entered the forbidden area just before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Bowers also reported seeing two men standing near the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. He added: "These men were the only two strangers in the area. The others were workers whom I knew." Bowers said the two men were there while the shots were fired.

Mark Lane interviewed Bowers for his book Rush to Judgment (1966): "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."

According to W. Penn Jones Jr, the editor of the Texas Midlothian Mirror, Bowers received death threats after giving evidence to the Warren Commission and Mark Lane.

On 9th August, 1966, Lee Bowers was killed when his car left the road and crashed into a concrete abutment in Midlothian, Texas. Robert J. Groden later reported "Lee Bowers was heading west here on highway sixty-seven heading from Midlothian down to Cleburne and according to an eyewitness he was driven off the road by a black car. Drove him into this bridge abutment. He didn't die immediately, he held on for four hours and during that time he was talking to the ambulance people and told them that he felt he had been drugged when he stopped for coffee back there a few miles in Midlothian."

SOURCE w links: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbowers.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #400
401. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
40 years later and you're still flogging the same old nonsense?
Why didn't Mr. Bowers say any of that to the Warren Commission?
Why did he only say it later to Mark Lane?
Did you have spooky music playing when you wrote about his death?
Have you yourself ever done any investigating into his death?
This guy did...
http://davesjfk.com/bowers.html
Not to mention Bowers is one of the many assassination witnesses who heard exactly three shots fired on 11/22/63 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza, and he said the shots came from either the area of the Texas School Book Depository Building OR the Triple Underpass area. But he did not hear shots coming from BOTH of those locations. It was one or the other, but not both.
Here is his exact words to the commission...
"I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify." -- Lee E. Bowers, Jr.; April 2, 1964
Of course, changed it for Mark lane.
Really Blofish, is this all you got?
Keep digging, my good friend, you are almost there!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #401
402. You still haven't added anything worth reading, zappaman.
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 11:38 AM by Octafish
Sad, in a way.

EDIT: Added "You" to the subject line to make it clear for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #402
403. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 11:53 AM by zappaman
I hope you don't think you have copy/pasted anything worth reading, my good friend.
EDITED:added "my good friend" so you would know I was addressing you, Blofish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #403
404. Lee E. Bowers reported what he saw...
...in Dallas...



On 22nd November, 1963, Lee Bowers was working in a high tower overlooking the Dealey Plaza in Dallas. He had a good view of the presidential motorcade and was able to tell the Warren Commission about the three cars that entered the forbidden area just before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Bowers also reported seeing two men standing near the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. He added: "These men were the only two strangers in the area. The others were workers whom I knew." Bowers said the two men were there while the shots were fired.

Mark Lane interviewed Bowers for his book Rush to Judgment (1966): "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."

According to W. Penn Jones Jr, the editor of the Texas Midlothian Mirror, Bowers received death threats after giving evidence to the Warren Commission and Mark Lane.

CONTINUED...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5...



Hope that helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #404
405. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
I guess Bowers was a liar, huh?
According to his testimony, Bowers did not see a flash of light or shooters standing behind the fence. Of course, being in the tower, he could see the entire fence area. Why then, did he change his story years later to Mark Lane?
Certainly helped Lane sell some books didn't it?
Here is some of Bowers testimony:
Mr. Ball.
When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. Bowers.
I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Mr. Ball.
You couldn't describe it?
Mr. Bowers.
Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened...

Hope that helps.

Looking forward to the big announcement tomorrow when you reveal JFK's killers, my good friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #405
406. Warren Commission didn't seem all that interested in what Lee Bowers reported, zappaman.
Going from what we know about its "investigation," it's hard for people familiar with the case to side with the Warren Commission on just about anything, including Lee Bowers' report. Here's a bit more on what he saw:



(9) David Welsh, Ramparts (November, 1966)

Lee Bowers' testimony is perhaps as explosive as any recorded by the Warren Commission. He was one of 65 known witnesses to the President's assassination who thought shots were fired from the area of the Grassy Knoll. (The Knoll is west of the Texas School Book Depository.) But more than that, he was in a unique position to observe some pretty strange behavior in the Knoll area during and immediately before the assassination.

Bowers, then a towerman with the Union Terminal Company, was stationed in his 14-foot tower directly behind the Grassy Knoll. As he faced the assassination site, he could see the railroad overpass to his right front. Directly in front of him was a parking lot, and then a wooden stockade fence and a row of trees running along the top of the Grassy Knoll. The Knoll sloped down to the spot on Elm Street where Kennedy was killed. Police had "cut off" traffic into the parking area, Bowers said, "so that anyone moving around could actually be observed."

Bowers made two significant observations which he revealed to the Commission. First, he saw three unfamiliar cars slowly cruising around the parking area in the 35 minutes before the assassination; the first two left after a few minutes. The driver of the second car appeared to be talking into "a mike or telephone" - "he was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other." A third car, with out-of-state plates and mud up to the windows, probed all around the parking area. Bowers last remembered seeing it about eight minutes before the shooting, pausing "just above the assassination site." He gave detailed descriptions of the cars and their drivers.

Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other - "one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing. His description shows a remarkable similarity to Julia Ann Mercer's description of two unidentified men climbing the knoll.

When the shots rang out, Bowers' attention was drawn to the area where he had seen the two men; he could still make out the one in the white shirt - "the darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees." He observed "some commotion" at that spot, "...something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around...which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify." At that moment, he testified, a motorcycle policeman left the Presidential motorcade and roared up the Grassy Knoll straight to where the two mysterious gentlemen were standing behind the fence. The policeman dismounted, Bowers recalled, then after a moment climbed on his motorcycle and drove off. Later, in a film interview with attorney Mark Lane, he explained that the "commotion" that caught his eye may have been "a flash of light or smoke." His information dovetails with what other witnesses observed from different vantage points.

CONTINUED...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbowers.htm



Keep posting. It's fascinating to read what's on your mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #406
407. Bloviate all you want, Octafish
"milling around"
wow.
and thanks for confirming that he changed his story to Lane.
Keep bloviating. It's fascinating to see someone flail about for years and years.
Again, how many people killed JFk, my good friend?
You always seem to avoid that question.

Bonus points:
can you find the testimony he gave that supports this quote from the site you copy/pasted from?

"He was one of 65 known witnesses to the President's assassination who thought shots were fired from the area of the Grassy Knoll."

tick...tick...tick...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #407
408. Did you hear of Julia Ann Mercer before this thread, zappaman?
Here's what she reported:



Julia Ann Mercer Saw Ruby Drop off a Gunman at Dealy Plaza

EXCERPT...

Julia Ann Mercer identified Jack Ruby as a man driving a pick-up truck who dropped off another man carrying a rifle near Dealy Plaza shortly before the assassination. The following is a description of Mercers story from Jim Garrisons book, On the Trail of the Assassins:
    Some of the best witnesses to the assassination found their way to us after it became apparent to them that the federal agents and the Dallas police really were not interested in what they saw. Julia Ann Mercer was just such a witness. In fact, no other witness so completely illuminated for me the extent of the cover-up.

    Mercer had been but a few feet away when one of the riflemen was unloaded at the grassy knoll shortly before the arrival of the presidential motorcade. Consequently, she was a witness not only to the preparation of President Kennedy's murder but also to the conspiracy involved.

    She gave statements to the FBI and the Dallas Sheriff's office, and then returned to the FBI and provided additional statements, but she was never called by the Warren Commissionnot even to provide an affidavit.

    Much earlier, I had read Julia Ann Mercer's statements in the Warren Commission exhibits, but I had never had a chance to talk to her. Then one day in early 1968 her husband called me at the office. He said that he and his wife were in New Orleans on business and had some things to tell me. I agreed to meet them at the Fairmont Hotel, where they were staying.

    Arriving at their suite, I found a most impressive couple. A middle-aged man of obvious substance, he had been a Republican member of Congress from Illinois. Equally impressive, she was intelligent and well-dressed, the kind of witness any lawyer would love to have testifying on his side in front of a jury. After he had departed on business, I handed her copies of her statements as they had been printed in the Warren Commission exhibits. She read them carefully and then shook her head.

    "These all have been altered," she said. "They have me saying just the opposite of what I really told them."

    About an hour before the assassination she had been driving west on Elm Street and had been stoppedjust past the grassy knollby traffic congestion. To her surprise (because she recalled that the President's parade was coming soon), she saw a young man in the pickup truck to her right dismount, carrying a rifle, not too well concealed in a covering of some sort. She then observed him walk up "the grassy hill which forms part of the overpass." She looked at the driver several times, got a good look at his round face and brown eyes, and he looked right back at her.

    Mercer also observed that three police officers were standing near a motorcycle on the overpass bridge above her and just ahead. She recalled that they showed no curiosity about the young man climbing the side of the grassy knoll with the rifle.

    After the assassination, when Mercer sought to make this information available to law enforcement authorities, their response was almost frenzied. At the FBI officewhere she went the day after the assassinationshe was shown a number of mug shots. Among the several she selected as resembling the driver was a photograph of Jack Ruby. On Sunday, when she saw Ruby kill Oswald on television, she positively recognized him as the driver of the pickup truck and promptly notified the local Bureau office. Nevertheless, the FBI altered her statement so it did not note that she had made a positive identification.

    She laughed when she pointed this out to me. "See," she said, "the FBI made it just the opposite of what I really told them." Then she added, "He was only a few feet away from me. How could I not recognize Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald on television?"

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/other_garrison.htm



As for my sources, go to the links. That's why I include them instead of just writing from memory or off the top of my head.

Let me know your thoughts. Always interested in reading them, zappaman. Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
280. By 2030
To the question ; When will the case be cracked?

I believe that by the year 2030 there will be a consensus that there was a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, and to cover it all up, and frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin.

We probably wont have the names of (all) the culprits though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #280
282. By 2030?
Cool, I'll check back then.
Meanwhile, you guys keep chasing your tails...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #282
287. He he
I`ll check back on the latest developments from time to time as well.

( Right now its most every day, catching up since 2007. )

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
323. Jaqueline Kennedys testimony
I didnt realize before that even Jaqueline Kennedys testimony was indicating a big wound to the back of the head :

"Warren Commission Suppressed Jackie's Testimony On JFK's Head Wound.

(...)

Dallas, TX -- August 5, 2001 -- JFK Lancer, an historical research firm reports that the Court Reporter's tape shows Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony before the Warren Commission had additional descriptions which were withheld.

Mrs. Kennedy testified in a short private session held at her home in Washington, D.C., with Chief Justice Earl Warren, Commission General Council J. Lee Rankin, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and a court reporter in attendance. Testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission was made public in the fall of 1964. Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony was also released containing her description of her husbands wounds which read :

"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything."

But a second section in which she described the wounds she saw carried only the notation: (Reference to Wounds Deleted).

Although very few Americans actually read those transcripts, historians and researchers who did read them were outraged, and waged a legal battle to have the omitted testimony released. In the early 1970s, a court decision required the United States Government to disclose to the public the contents of the still classified section of Mrs. Kennedy's 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Her previously withheld statement read:

" I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." "

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #323
326. Professor Gerald D. McKnight pegged the Warren Commission Ommission Mission.
Mrs. Kennedy's testimony is heartbreaking. Leaving it out of the Warren Commission report is inexcusable.

It simplifies the job of historical revisionists. For example, some spread the lie she was trying to jump out of the car at the sight of her mortally wounded husband. The reality is, she was attempting to retrieve a piece of his skull that had been blown out onto the car's trunk.

Why would someone want to keep that from the American people? After all, that's evidence indicating a shot from the front of the car.

Many good people have gone against the CIA-corporate-controlled press version of history, including Gerald D. McKinght. The author chronicles clearly the "Who, What, Where, When, How and Why?" of the cover-up.

The FBI, CIA and Johnson administration have a lot to answer for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #326
328. No, it's evidence of...
an avulsive wound. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #328
409. Rather than applying condescension, you should learn more about Abraham Bolden, sduderstadt.
Bolden was the nation's first African American Secret Service agent:



After 40 Years, the First National Security Whistleblower Still Seeks Justice

by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann
Published on Friday, February 17, 2006, by CommonDreams.org

After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by John F. Kennedy to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. But you haven't heard about Abraham Bolden during Black History month, because after helping to prevent JFK's assassination in the weeks before Dallas, Bolden was arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission about those attempts. Caught in a maze of National Security concerns that only became clear after four million pages of JFK files were released in the 1990s, Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, becoming America's first National Security Whistleblower.

The files released after Congress passed the JFK Act unanimously in 1992 show the massive amount of information that had been withheld from at least five Congressional investigations. Even worse, the Final Report of the JFK Board created by Congress shows that crucial files about attempts against JFK--the cases Bolden worked on--were destroyed by the Secret Service in 1995. And, a report by the government oversight group OMB Watch says that "well over one million CIA records" related to JFK's era remain unreleased, perhaps until the mandatory release date of 2017.

SNIP...

On February 14, 2006, Congress held hearings about National Security Whistleblowers, aimed at improving laws to protect them from retaliation for trying to tell the truth. The witnesses who testified revealed a litany of workers being attacked by their own agencies, of documents destroyed or withheld--even from Congress--and of years of struggle to get fair hearings. This pattern began in the case of Abraham Bolden in 1964, yet most in Congress are unaware of his case. Likewise, Congress doesn't realize that not only did the Secret Service admit destroying crucial JFK documents in 1995, but that the Secret Service then failed to confirm their compliance with the JFK Act under oath, as did other agencies.

The JFK Board's Final Report detailing that was released 1998, amidst the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair, which may explain why it received little attention at the time. The OMB Watch report in which an official who worked with the JFK Board admitted that "well over one million CIA records" are still secret was released in the hotly contested election year of 2000, which may be why that escaped the notice of journalists and those in Congress. In addition, the major revelations in the four million JFK documents that were released in the 1990s--and continued to trickle out today--are only just now coming to light.

In today's world of instant e-mail and 24-hour news channels, many were recently amazed that Vice President Cheney was able to keep news of his shooting of another man secret for almost 24 hours.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0217-20.htm



Open your mind and you'll be amazed how much better you feel. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #409
410. I knew perfectly well who...
Bolden was, dude.

Maybe if you'd apply some actual proof of your goofy CT bullshit, people would take you more seriously.

Don't you think 47 years of futility is enough? What are you guys waiting for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-27-10 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
331. Abraham Bolden
This is really interesting.

Abraham Bolden on the Chicago Plot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBKcJAwwKrQ&feature=rela...

------------

Radio interview :

"After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction.

(...)

Soon after the assassination, he received orders that hint at an effort to withhold, or at least to the color, the truth. He discovered that evidence was being kept from the Warren Commission and when he took action, found himself charged with conspiracy to sell a secret government file and imprisoned for more than five years, mostly in the psychiatric ward of the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. In September 1969, after a short stint at a prisoncamp in Alabama, Bolden was finally granted parole.

Nearly 45 years later, Abraham Bolden has come forward to tell his story. A gripping memoir substantiated by recently declassified government documents, The Echo from Dealey Plaza is the story of the terrible price paid by one man for his commitment to truth and justice, as well as a shocking new perspective on the circumstances surrounding the death of JFK. It was an honor for me to feature him as a guest on The Real Deal and to have this opportunity to present aspects of his personal experiences to the public."

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/echo-from-deale...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #331
333. The Chicago Plot
Gee, like Milteer in Miami, the Chicago plot was a conspiracy, too. One would think the FBI and Secret Service would want to protect the President.

A PDF of "The Plot to Kill JFK in Chicago Nov. 2, 1963," an article by Edwin Black, now a celebrated author and New York Times writer:

http://www.blackopradio.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot%20by%2...

More notes on the subject, including interviews:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Bolden.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #331
373. Thomas Vallee is a person of interest.
An ABC Chicago interview:



44 Years After JFK's Death, New Assassination Plot Revealed

Just Three Weeks Before Dallas, Feds Uncovered Plot to Kill JFK in Chicago, Says Ex-Secret Service Agent


By CHUCK GOUDIE, WLS-TV
Nov. 22, 2007

EXCERPT...

Although police were preparing to line the motorcade route, Secret Service officials in Chicago were deeply troubled about the visit because of two secret threats.

Right-wing radical and Kennedy denouncer Thomas Vallee had arranged to be off work for JFK's visit; Vallee, an expert marksman, was arrested with an M1 rifle, a handgun and 3,000 rounds of ammo. But then there was the phone call to federal agents from a motel manager concerning what she'd seen in a room rented by two Cuban nationals.

"Had seen lying on the bed several automatic rifles with telescopic sights, with an outline of the route that President Kennedy was supposed to take in Chicago that would bring him past that building," said former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden.

Bolden, 72, of Chicago, was a young agent in 1963. After a few years as an Illinois state trooper, Bolden joined he Secret Service and was invited by Kennedy onto the prestigious White House detail. He was the first black agent assigned to protect a president.

Bolden recalled how agents bungled surveillance of those two suspected Cuban hit men. They disappeared and were never identified.

CONTINUED...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3902495&page=1



For the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #373
374. Ah, Bolden again....
hmmmm. Again, why did Bolden wait for 4 and a half decades, dude????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #374
375. It seems to me that the answer to that is self evident
He tried to sound the alarm, but he was badly burned, as he was set up, and put in jail.

Guess you believe he is a liar, and so your thinking around this has him down for a liar, and so you ask "Why did he wait four decades dude?"

But once you take into concideration that he might be telling the truth, the answer gives itself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #375
376. Actually, no it doesn't...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #376
377. How do you find it doesnt ?
If you were framed and put in prison for a couple of years, you would surely not come out of prison and feel like starting up another round.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #331
411. New documentary
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-28-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
332. Hoover / Johnson
Pretty weird conversation between Hoover and Johnson this.

Weird story about the bullet recovered. And also weird remark this "How did it happen *they* hit Connally?"

--------------

"Lyndon B. Johnson: How many shots were fired? Three?

J. Edgar Hoover: Three.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Any of them fired at me?

J. Edgar Hoover: No.

Lyndon B. Johnson: All three at the President?

J. Edgar Hoover: All three at the president and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistics expert was able to prove that they were fired by this gun. The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the Governor the third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out of the President's head It tore a large part of the President's head off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the stretcher. And we recovered that... And we have the gun here also.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Were they aiming at the President?

J. Edgar Hoover: They were aiming directly at the President. There is no question about that. This telescopic lens, which I've looked through-it brings a person as close to you as if they were sitting right beside you. And we also have tested the fact that you could fire those three shots... within three seconds. There had been some stories going around... that there must have been more than one man because no one man could fire those shots in the time that they were fired...

Lyndon B. Johnson: How did it happen they hit Connally?

J. Edgar Hoover: Connally turned to the President when the first shot was fired and I think in that turning, it was where he got hit.

Lyndon B. Johnson: If he hadn't turned, he probably wouldn't have got hit?

J. Edgar Hoover: I think that is very likely."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #332
334. LBJ-J Edgar Hoover tape missing -- all we have is the transcript.
And that's pretty, eh, interesting.



LBJ-Hoover November 23, 1963

Return to: LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963
TRANSCRIPT (PDF: 162 K)

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.

The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information.



Much as I despise the two of them, the most plausible reason I can see for going lone-nut right away was to prevent World War III, which, I believe, was the rationale for the assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #334
335. 47 years, dude...
Are you getting close? When are you going to stop chasing your tail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #335
342. So if the story doesn't matter anymore, why put so much effort into putting me down, sduderstadt?
And if the story doesn't matter anymore, why does it matter to you?

Going by your tears, there must be nothing better for you to do, I imagine.

Even though it's been almost 47 years, there are many people interested in learning about the assassination of President Kennedy, especially regarding evidence that indicates conspiracy. I'd wager that most Americans never heard someone impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald about two months before the assassination. Fewer still would know that the tape on which President Johnson and FBI director Hoover discuss it has been "erased":





The Fourteen Minute Gap

Rex E. Bradford

April 10, 2000

During Watergate, one of the more important events was the discovery of an eighteen minute gap on one of the Nixon tapes. This erasure, reportedly performed by Presidential secretary Rose Mary Woods on Nixons orders, created quite a stir when revealed. It was never determined what in fact had been erased, which added to the mystery of the affair.

This article presents my discovery of a second such tape erasure, this one of a phone conversation conducted between President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy. The erasure in this case is about 14 minutes in length, somewhat shorter than the Nixon gap. The Johnson tape is different in one other significant respecta transcript of the conversation survived the erasure. It is in my view the true smoking gun tape of modern American history.

First, some background. At last Novembers JFK Lancer conference in Dallas, former military intelligence officer and history professor John Newman gave an electrifying presentation. In this talk, he discussed in detail the existence, post-assassination, of the famous Oswald Mexico City tapes. One of the most astonishing documents to surface in this regard was a transcript of a phone call between FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and the new President Lyndon Johnson. This call occurred at 10:01 AM on the morning of November 23, 1963, less than 24 hours after the assassination, while Oswald was still alive in a jail cell in Dallas. The most explosive portion of this transcript is reproduced below:
    LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

    Hoover: No, thats one angle thats very confusing, for this reasonwe have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswalds name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this mans voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.<1>
Tapes of Oswald calling the Soviets not matching his voice? But hasnt the CIA declared since the beginning that these tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, leaving only transcripts as evidence on November 22, 1963? When the above LBJ-Hoover conversation was first revealed a few years ago, many assumed that Hoover was being typically loose with his facts. But last November, Newman presented a good deal of evidence which corroborates Hoovers astounding statement that the taped calls did indeed survive the assassination and were listened to by FBI agents. Some of this comes from the Lopez Report, the long-suppressed House Select Committee on Assassinations staff report on Oswalds trip to Mexico City. More still comes from newly released FBI materials, some only available for the first time last year. The Lopez Report excerpted a memorandum from FBIs Belmont to Tolson on 11/23/63, which states:
    ..Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,..<2>

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenM...



Now why wouldn't the FBI, let alone the CIA, want us to know more about the fact they knew someone was impersonating Oswald about two months before the assassination? Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #342
345. Dude...
do you really expect us to believe that the "perps" would select someone who doesn't even remotely look like Oswald to impersonate him? Does that make sense to you?

The reason I dog you so much is because some people uncritically buy your bullshit. Here's a better question: why do you become so unhinged because someone presents the other aide. You really ought to knock off your insinuating that someone who doesn't buy your nonsense couldn't have loved JFK, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #345
349. I'm not insinuating squat. I'm saying you talk a lot and do nothing, sduderstadt.
Just as bad: You tell me it's been 47 years and get over it.

I say, no, there's an incredible amount of information most Americans don't know about.

If they did, we'd be a lot closer to knowing the truth and those responsible still alive brought to justice and those dead brought to account.



So, it's been 47 years? Seems like yesterday. Dude.

Regarding finding someone who doesn't look like Oswald impersonating him, how the heck did the conspirators know they'd be photographed or tape-recorded inside the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City? At the time, very few people knew those closely held secrets of our nation. They apparently wanted to establish the "Oswald" legend as a fellow making contact with an assassin of the KGB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-29-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #349
351. Bullshit, dude....
You gratuitously included a link to where I shared a deeply held feeling about JFK (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ), as if to insinuate that I can't possibly be sincere about it. Here's a newsflash, dude...someone can reject your goofy bullshit and cherish JFK. I don't know why you keep bringing this up and it's really tiring, dude.

In the meantime, are you denying that Oswald not only went to Mexico City, but also visited the Russian and Cuban embassies???? As far as your question about how would the "conspirators" know that they would be photographed inside (actually, I believe that shot is outside one of the embassies, not inside), what difference would it make if they knew or not? Do you honestly expect us to believe that no one would remember Oswald's visit when asked about it later?

I don't keep "attacking" you, dude. I keep pointing out your lack of critical thinking skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #351
354. Do you have anything to add on the subject: 'FBI Agent says Oswald not JFK assassin?' sduderstadt?
Here's why I find your telling us about your tears to be so strange, sduderstadt:

Retired FBI agent Don Adams steps forward and goes on the record to testify his superiors in the FBI ordered him to "stand down" in his investigation of Joseph A. Milteer -- an ultra-conservative, rightwing racist who was tape recorded by a trusted FBI informant detailing the plot to shoot President Kennedy from a high rise office building and then setting up a patsy for the police to charge.

Agent Adams wants the American people to know how his investigation into Milteer's threat to President Kennedy was not acted upon by the FBI or Secret Service. Mr. Adams and his documentary information provide solid evidence for a conspiracy being responsible for the assassination. Adams also provides solid evidence for a conspiracy on the part of inactions by his superiors at the FBI to prevent the assassination.

Agent Adams and his evidence are the reasons for this thread and its importance. They also are why I don't understand or appreciate you devoting so much time to denigrating my replies.

You see, it's been my experience that people who truly care about President Kennedy are interested in learning more about the assassination, not putting down those interested in discovering truth. They also seldom reiterate the contention that we already know all that we really need to know about the assassination -- specifically, the supposition that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. That's the real bullshit. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #354
355. SDuderstadt already contributed on this subject
It's not the case that Milteer "detail(ed) the plot to shoot President Kennedy from a high rise office building." In anything, one might construe that Milteer predicted that Kennedy would be shot during his visit to Miami.

You assert that "Mr. Adams and his documentary information provide solid evidence for a conspiracy...." If you're wrong -- as I suspect you are -- then the obvious way for SDuderstadt to contribute is by "denigrating (your) replies."

It's sort of interesting to watch your efforts to convince others, or yourself, that SDuderstadt's substantive disagreement evinces his bad faith. You're trying to shut down, or at least to discredit, critical discussion of your claims. Why? Well, probably because you believe them. But I, for one, am interested in reality independent of what you believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #355
358. If you and sduderstadt believe that, fine, that's your business or prerogative.
Made weeks before the assassination, the Milteer tape is evidence for conspiracy. Mr. Adams documented his claims regarding the actions and inactions of his superiors at the FBI. Didn't you read the article or see the news video?

Here's what Donald E. Wilkes wrote, more than 23 years ago, on the subject:



WAS MILTEER IN DALLAS?

Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.
Published in The Athens Observer, p. 2A (February 19, 1987).

EXCERPT...

Neither the panel nor the Committee itself investigated the basic general question of where Milteer was on Nov. 22, 1963, and particularly whether he was in Dallas.

Furthermore, one member of the panel, photographic expert Robert Groden, dissented, stating that the issue was "by no means put to rest by comparing the height of the man in the Altgens photo to Milteer's known height or the unknown relative heights of the other people in the crowd standing near him." Plainly, the panel's conclusion as to the identity of the individual is open to doubt. Milteer may have been the man in the picture. This is true even though neither the FBI nor the Committee could find a connection between Milteer and his associates and either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby or their associates.

One other matter remains to be discussed. Once the tape recording had been turned over by local police, what investigation of Milteer did federal agents undertake, both before and after the assassination? According to Secret Service documents published by Harold Weisberg in 1971, the Miami office of the Secret Service closed its file on Milteer on Nov. 12, 1963--three days after Milteer had talked to the informant and nine days before the assassination! Apparently the Secret Service's pre-assassination investigation was transferred to other offices, but there is apparently no published evidence of what investigation these other offices undertook.

The post-assassination federal investigation of Milteer appears to have been an interview between Milteer and two FBI agents on Nov. 27, 1963. Harold Weisberg has published the report of the interview prepared by the FBI agents. That report is one and one-half pages long. It consists of six terse paragraphs. According to the report, Milteer denied ever making any threats to assassinate President Kennedy or participating in the assassination. Milteer also said he had never heard anyone make threats against the president. He denied knowing Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby.

CONTINUED...

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/...



If you are certain that the Milteer tape is not evidence of conspiracy, OnTheOtherHand, it's your right. I'm not telling you not to or asking you to prove while you feel that way. Perhaps you can write a paper on it and, if you think it'd stand peer review, please consider submitting it for consideration in next year's E.E. Schattschneider Award.

Regarding what sduderstadt has contributed to this thread, it still amounts to: zero.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #358
360. yes, I read the article, which raises additional problems
For instance, if Adams is convinced that "there were clearly 11 shots fired," it raises obvious questions about his judgment.

What I'm getting from your excerpt is: (1) it may not be conclusively proven that the man in the photo isn't Milteer (oh boy!); (2) the panel and Committee adduced no further evidence for or against the contemporaneous reports that Milteer was in Georgia on the day of the assassination; (3) Milteer apparently lied either to Somersett or to the FBI. Big whoop.

FYI, the Schattschneider Award is given for a doctoral dissertation. It would be very hard to squeeze a peer-reviewed paper, much less a political science doctoral dissertation, out of why a particular tape isn't evidence of conspiracy. More generally, a lot of woo goes unrebutted because, frankly, one has to be masochistic to take the time to respond to it.

Again, it's not surprising that you regard SDuderstadt's criticisms as meritless, but you aren't well positioned to make that evaluation. I think the Nation's online archive led him astray on the McBride article, but that is hardly his fault, and it has no bearing on all the other issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #360
361. Right. Right. Right.
Wish the best of luck to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #354
356. Dude...
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 11:03 AM by SDuderstadt
read the OP once more. Do you see where in one line Adams states that he "has the FBI documents to prove it"? Then, within the next two lines, he states that "all the work I had done is gone. It's all gone". Did you notice that, dude? Did you notice the contradiction? Where's the "documentary evidence" you claim he has? Is there really anything new? No, it's just mostly Adams rambling.

Dude, the Warren Commission produced 26 volumes of testimony, documents and exhibits. Since the Warren Commission, no less than THREE other investigations - Ramsey Clark, Rockefeller, then the HSCA have CONFIRMED the WC's findings. In 47 years, your "community" has produced a mish-mash of nonsense that, not only does not refute the WCR, the various "theories" contradict each other. After all the "work" you've done over 47 years, you and your cohorts have been completely unable to converge upon a person or group of persons other than Oswald and show how they did it.

And, you again advance your silly notion that, if one truly cares about JFK, they'll embrace your goofy bullshit. After 47 years, you just keep rebunking the same bullshit that has been repeatedly debunked.

Are you close to blowing the lid off this thing, dude? How many decades is this going to take?

Repackaged bullshit is still bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #356
359. Adams reported he has the documents to prove his claims, sduderstadt.
Of course the FBI scrubbed their files. It looks like they had reason to. That's why it's taken investigators like Harold Weisberg, Peter Dale Scott, Philip Melanson and John Newman decades to piece together what the FBI has done to help foist the Big Lie on history. So, instead of getting mad at me for believing Don Adams over you, please call your local tee vee station and ask them why they don't cover the story. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #359
362. Dude...
do you know the difference between inculpatory and exculpatory evidence? No one is arguing that Hosty should have destroyed the note, whether at Shanklin's direction or not. But you trumpet the destruction of ONE note which, if anything leaned in the direction of evidence that shows Oswald did it. It's hardly the wholesale "scrubbing" of files as you grossly mislead the reader. Suffice it to say that your and Adams' definition of "evidence" appears to be far different tham mine or, for that matter, most rational people.

That aside, if you believe Adams has solved the case, by all means, submit your "evidence" to the Dallas District Attorney, dude. His contact info is:

Craig Watkins
Dallas County District Attorneys Office
Frank Crowley Courts Building
133 N. Industrial Blvd., LB 19
Dallas, Texas 75207

214-653-3600 main
214-653-5774 fax
www.dallasda.com

We can only hope that you don't waste nearly five decades of his life, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #362
363. Thanks for the information, sduderstadt.
It's a first. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #363
364. Well, it's not like you or Adams exactly have...
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 09:17 PM by SDuderstadt
anything to present, dude.

47 years, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-02-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #364
367. Brave FBI agent comes forward to testify Oswald was innocent and you blast him for it, sduderstadt.
From: http://www.adamsjfk.com/Page_4_The_Investigation.html
    Retired FBI Special Agent Donald A. Adams was immediately assigned by Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta FBI office Jim McMahon to find and hold Milteer for interrogation. But even as a relatively new agent, Adams was taken aback by his orders from McMahon.

    McMahon got very specific with me about my interview with Milteer. He cautioned me that the interview had to be done carefully and that he was going to instruct me as to the questions I should ask and that I was to ask no more. I was puzzled by these instructions, and I remember insisting twice that when we talked with Milteer, we needed to find out more information, including where he had been traveling and what hed been doing. My arguments fell on deaf ears. McMahon was emphatic about the questions I was to ask. I disagreed and was troubled by his orders, but I knew my boundaries.

Agent Adams says his report about Joseph Adams Milteer in the National Archives has been "hacked apart."

I can't wait to read what was in Adam's original report.

Why you don't think it matters is your own business, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-02-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #367
368. Dude...
Edited on Sat Oct-02-10 05:49 PM by SDuderstadt
simple question: why didn't Adams come forward when 1) his account could have been corroborated and 2) it would have made a difference?

I'm going to ask you politely one more time to quit attacking my motivation. You can pretend as much as you want that there aren't two sides to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-02-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #368
370. Your words: 'Well, it's not like you or Adams exactly have...anything to present, dude,' sduderstadt
Your post from above:



SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-30-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #363
364. Well, it's not like you or Adams exactly have...

Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 09:17 PM by SDuderstadt

anything to present, dude.

47 years, dude.

Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever - Will Ackerman



My point is not that there are two sides to the assassination. My point is you denigrate Adams because he produced evidence for conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top