Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

45 Years On, We Must Bring JFK’s Killers to Justice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 03:39 PM
Original message
45 Years On, We Must Bring JFK’s Killers to Justice
More than anything, what I want from the Obama Department of Justice is to see those responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought to Justice.



Going by the newspapers, radio and television stations though, you’d think no one else gave a damn, let alone remembers the assassination of the 35th President of the United States.

There was nothing about the assassination in Dallas in my local newspaper. I checked the TV and listened to the radio. Nothing.

Thank heavens for DU and Google News, which returned 7,111 articles today under “JFK.”

Here’s the thing: President Kennedy who worked every day in office to keep the world at peace. He worked to make this a better nation for all Americans. He saw a better future and did all he could to bring it to reality. And he stood up to those he knew opposed him when he thought he was right.

Contrast the history since President Kennedy’s passing: It’s been a pretty much steady drumbeat for war from Vietnam to Iraq.

To those who tell me to, “Move on, it was just the brutal work of a lone nut,” I say, “That is exactly what J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles wanted us to believe.”

To those who say, “We’ll never know,” I say, “It is no pipe dream. There are veterans of World War I still among us. Therefore, we must try to find them. There is no statute of limitations on murder or treason.”

To those who want to shut down discussion on the subject – and to forget the memory of a great President – I say: “Go to Hell.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R ...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. JFK and Vietnam


From today's LA Times:



JFK and Vietnam

Kennedy's assassination 45 years ago today made it an American war.


By Gordon M. Goldstein
Opinion
Los Angeles Times
November 22, 2008

EXCERPT...

Over the course of the year, Kennedy's advisors presented him with half a dozen or more proposals to Americanize the war. In one, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that it would be difficult to prevent "the fall of South Vietnam by any measures short of the introduction of U.S. forces on a substantial scale."

Kennedy's advisors told him that to defend the Saigon regime might take more than 200,000 combat troops. McGeorge Bundy, national security advisor, believed that committing American troops was vital. "Laos was never really ours after 1954," Bundy explained to the skeptical president, invoking another Southeast Asian nation where Kennedy had resisted intervention. "Vietnam is and wants to be."

Kennedy was not receptive. Long before becoming president, he had spoken out in Congress against the disastrous French experience in Vietnam, citing it as a reason the U.S. should never fight a ground war there. In the summer of 1961, he said he had accepted the conclusion of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who counseled against a land war in Asia, insisting that even a million American infantry soldiers would not be sufficient to prevail. He would offer military aid and training to Saigon, but he would not authorize the dispatch of ground forces.

Over the three years of his presidency, Kennedy sometimes invoked hawkish rhetoric about Vietnam. He also increased the military advisors and training personnel there to roughly 16,000. But McNamara and Bundy both came to believe that Kennedy would not have Americanized the war -- even if the price was communism in South Vietnam.

Kennedy realized that the inability of the United States to shut down the Ho Chi Minh Trail -- the lines of infiltration and resupply from North Vietnam -- would make it impossible to defeat the insurgency. "Those trails are a built-in excuse for failure," Kennedy told an aide in the spring of 1962, "and a built-in argument for escalation." Kennedy was so dubious he declared to White House aide Michael Forrestal that the odds against defeating the Viet Cong were 100 to 1.

In early 1963, Kennedy told Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who opposed increased U.S. involvement in Vietnam, that he would begin withdrawing advisors from South Vietnam at the beginning of his second term in 1965. Kennedy disclosed the same plan to Roswell Gilpatric, his deputy secretary of Defense. But the tragedy in Dallas in November 1963 changed everything.

What happened after Kennedy's death is a familiar story. Lyndon B. Johnson ran for president in 1964, and in August of that year he used an ambiguous incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to extract an open-ended congressional authorization for military action against North Vietnam. On March 8, 1965, Johnson sent the first 3,500 Marines to Vietnam. Within months he had approved deploying 175,000 combat troops.

CONTINUED...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe...



Thanks for giving a damn, AzDar! We may yet get there, my Friend, despite all the warmongering of the past 45 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
140. My god, you haven't heard???
Lee Harvey used his low I Q and medicore shooting skills to
pull the assination off, all by himself...Kookie Roberts even
said so...and that her father worked hard on the Warren
commission and their is no other explaination...so, I guess
that ends it...We also won in Vietnam and we are on the verge
of winning the war on terror...Oh, yeah, my bank called and
said they would like to reduce my mortgage payments by 50%
and the winning lottery numbers will come to be in a dream
As long as I am being delusional, I'm going for the whole
package...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #140
315. Our country's been hijacked and we're wondering 'What's wrong with this picture?'
This is what's wrong:

Secret Service on the Limo



Normally, the Secret Service is ordered to protect the President.
Here they are seen riding on the back bumper of the car, for instance.

Secret Service NOT on the Limo



On November 22, 1963, the Secret Service were no where to be seen near the car's bumper.



From videotape shot at Love Field by ABC that day, it looks like they were ordered to be no where near President Kennedy.
One good guy, Secret Service Agent Henry J. Rybka, actually questioned his boss's order to get off the back bumper of the President's limousine.

For those new to the subject, here's the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-57709843954814...

Most everyone I've shown that video to has gotten really mad and a bit frightened to see for themselves what our nation is up against.

Hey! Wish it were under happier circumstances -- a hearty welcome to DU, russspeakeasy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
227. Here's the Official Magic Bullet Path
What this proves is that the official story is a lie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #227
232. Wrong. See my post #232.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #232
250. Nonsense. BTW that bullet was magic, in part
because it showed up laying on the gurney in pristine condition. no distortions at all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #250
253. Wrong. The bullet was NOT pristine. The nose was somewhat flattened
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 02:02 PM by stopbush
and the butt of the bullet was distorted into an almost oval shape
(see here: ).


You call that "pristine?" "No distortions at all?" Right!

Your statement is in contradiction to the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #253
372. Comparatively speaking, it is pristine
A bullet hitting anything dense (like bone) would mushroom out at the head in a very noticeable way. This bullet exhibits no mushrooming, period. That would be demonstrated by a lengthwise photo of the bullet.
This is not the bullet that caused all of those wounds in Kennedy and Connally. This bullet was planted on the stretcher by some unknown person.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #372
379. If this bullet was planted on the stretcher, then when was it fired from Oswald's rifle?
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 06:39 PM by stopbush
The ballistics test to Oswald's rifle perfectly matched CE 399. That means CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle. If CE 399 was planted (ie: not fired during the assassination), then it had to have been fired from Oswald's rifle before the assassination or while in police custody after being found post-assassination.

But there's a bigger problem with your fantasy - how did lead fragments from CE 399 end up in Connally's wrist and leg if the bullet didn't enter Connally during the shooting? Did some conspirator scrape off a few fragments and embed them in Connally while he was recovering in hospital? Did LBJ scrape off the fragments and implant them in Connally before the assassination?

Sound likely? Sound logical? Didn't think so.

BTW - comparatively speaking, an unfired, pristine round has no rifling on its sides. CE 399 has rifling, and it matches Oswald's rifle.

Let me quote a source who asks a few good and logical questions:

"Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators:

1. Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2. Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3. Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4. Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?

Source: Adopted from a post by John Canal on alt.assassination.jfk

More here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

As far as the "pristine" bullet not being able to do all the damage it did, the pristine results have been duplicated in test by Dr John Lattimer ( "Experimental Duplication of the Important Physical Evidence of the Lapel Bulge of the Jacket Worn by Governor Connally When Bullet 399 Went Through Him" by John K. Lattimer, M.D., et al,in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, May 1994. The article describes an experiment which supplies the most complete verification of the Single Bullet Theory yet performed.]

"By duplicating the wound to the neck of President Kennedy, which
caused bullet 399 to turn sideways, and having it *then* hit a
Connally-type rib cage with shirt and jacket, we reproduced the
right-sided bulge of the jacket worn by Connally, with lapel
eversion, which is so significant in frame 224. The extensive
damage to his shirtfront was from the hail of rib fragments and
soft tissue, exactly as described with his own shirt. Our tumbling
bullet then went on to fracture a radius and be recovered intact
except that it was somewhat flattened and bent and had lead
extruded from the rear, as did bullet 399. Fragments of this lead
were scraped off on the ragged bone-ends of some of our fractured
radiuses, just as with Governor Connally's radius. It is believed
that this duplication of the jacket and lapel bulge of Governor
Connally, which occurred dependably, when we reproduced the
circumstances at Dallas, confirmed this very important detail in
this technical demonstration of the findings in the shooting of
President Kennedy and Governor Connally."

More here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #372
385. RE: mushrooming - there's no mushrooming of the head of CE 399
because the bullet changed orientation emerging from JFK's neck and struck bone in Connally on its side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #372
397. Here's how CE 399 absolutely proves that it was the bullet that caused all the wounds
and why it could not possibly have been planted:

CE 399 was found on the Parkland stretcher the day of the shooting. It was found at a time BEFORE:
• the autopsy photos had been released
• the autopsy report was released
• the Zapruder film was known to exist
• the examination of Connally's wounds was completed

So, let's look at the major challenge that would be faced by anyone looking to plant a fake bullet on that stretcher. They would have had to have known that:
• the bullet passed through JFK without striking hard tissue
• the bullet tumbled as it left JFK's body before entering Connally
• the bullet didn't strike bone until it hit Connally's 5th rib

In other words, any "planted" bullet would need to be pre-fabricated to exactly match the condition it ended up in (which perfectly reflects the travel of the bullet through the bodies of JFK & Connally) before the shooting even took place. In addition, fragments from that "planted" bullet would somehow have to end up in Connally's thigh, ie: where CE 399 ended it's journey. AND, anyone pre-fabricating such a bullet would have to know IN ADVANCE of the shooting that fabric threads from Connally's clothing would be transferred forward along the bullet's trajectory as it moved through one piece of fabric, through tissue, through more fabric etc. and, finally, into Connally's thigh.

Now, how could anyone know all of that and fabricate a bullet and plant it the DAY OF the shooting? Really, I'd like to know what magic was involved in such a trick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #372
409. Here's the alleged magic bullet.


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...

The magic bullet appears to have been fired into cotton wadding.

That makes me think the government's "best evidence" for their case is bogus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. I know at least one of those bastards involved is still alive


And one of the bastards who helped cover it up


If only one or both would have a "Lee Atwater" moment and confess the truth before their final departure for Hell......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Don't KNOW if either one was a conspirator, but I'd at least like them to answer publicly.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 04:26 PM by Octafish
...What do they know about the assassination?

Perhaps, then, we can discover the truth, my Friend.

Until then, they both will be under a cloud of suspicion.

And I THINK one of them did have something to do with the assassination because he told the FBI he was there:

Poppy Bush Involved in JFK Assassination -- BFEE's Spooked!

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and ''Conspiracy Theorists'' at Ford Funeral

EDIT: The whole bloody post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
113. Octafish I started a thread that got moved tonight - Not sure why but here is the link...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canichelouis Donating Member (357 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
211. Hear, hear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
112. Which is why the cover-up/misinformation continues.
There's more than one still alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
226. I want to know where Liddy was that day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think we need to look no further than the BFEE
And where was the dick that day? Anyone know? We all know where poopy was.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Without DU, many of us wouldn't know the connections.
Here's Prof. Donald E. Wilkes' archive of articles on the assassination:

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

Thanks for giving a damn, leftchick. Only together can we possibly bear this immeasurably sad burden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. oh for god's sakes
Thank you Octafish. For the third time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salguine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
43. Would someone please tell me what the hell the BFEE is? I was born
before all communication was riddled with abbreviations and shortspeak and all that stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Bush Family Evil Empire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Bush Family Evil Empire n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
80. It's also, for me, shorthand for the "War Party."
The phrase helps put a handle on the nation's corrupt power elite. Not all Bushes are evil or beholden to the BFEE, nor are all those who gain by its existence members of the immediate or extended Bush family. Nor are the Bushes at the pinnacle of global power -- it is quite likely they serve an even wealthier class. What they all have in common is the use of the powers of the government of the United States for accumulating wealth and power for themselves, their associates and the other affiliated beneficiaries among the world's financial elite and authoritarian regimes. Always, they gain at the expense of the people and nations of the world, including the citizens of the United States and its Constitution. For proof, consider the past 45 years and the constant war, the constant concentration of wealth, and the constant constriction of civil rights.

Know your Bush Family Evil Empire

Know your BFEE: John McCain, Dim Knight Errant of the War Party

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Know your BFEE: The Corrupt Bastards Club… with Lipstick

Know your BFEE: Olympic Games Show Who’s Best Friends Forever with Authoritarians and Dictators

Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship

Know your BFEE: Forget Rev. Wright! It’s Bush and His Cronies Who Owe an Apology for Rev. Moon!

Know your BFEE: GW Bush Covers Up His Lying America Into War

Know your BFEE: Bush and His Crooks with Badges Sent an Innocent Man to Jail

Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

Know your BFEE: Bush has Killed a Million Innocent People for Their Oil.

Know your BFEE: Scions of the Military Industrial Complex

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Know your BFEE: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford Covered Up CIA Murder of American Scientist

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

Know your BFEE: They kill good soldiers like Col. Ted Westhusing for profit.

Know your BFEE: America’s Ruling Gangster Class

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and "Conspiracy Theorists" at Ford Funeral

Know your BFEE: Robert Gates did more than keep the doors open at BCCI

Know your BFEE: The Fellowship ‘Preys’ for America

Sink the BFEE: Foley gives us Congress. Condi sends 'em to prison.

Beat the BFEE: Poppy’s CIA warned about terror plots and did not stop them

Know your BFEE: Los Amigos de Bush

Know your BFEE: Neil Bush hangs out with Russian Mafiya Godfather

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.

Know your BFEE: Nazis couldn’t win WWII, so they / Bushes.

Know your BFEE: At every turn, JFK was opposed by War Party

Know your BFEE: Lies Are the Currency of Their Realm

Know your BFEE: Cheney & Halliburton Sold Iran Nuke Technology

Know your BFEE: The Stench of Moussaoui Permeates the Octopus

Know your BFEE: Moussaoui Must Die for Bush and 'His' Government

Know your BFEE: Alito is just another word for Mussolini

Know your BFEE: Like a NAZI

Know your BFEE: The China-Bush Axis

Know your BFEE: Bush and bin Laden Clans Together in Bed

Know your BFEE: Libby Is the First Big BFEE Turd to Go Down

Know your BFEE: WHIG (White House Iraq Group) made phony case for Iraq War

Know your BFEE: The Secret Government

Know your BFEE: Reinhard Gehlen

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush Armed Saddam

Know your BFEE: Killer Businessmen who put Power and Profit before Country

Know your BFEE: Nixon Threatened to Nuke Vietnam

Know your BFEE: Corrupt Craftsmen Hoover and Dulles

Know your BFEE: Poppy’s CIA Made Saddam Into the Butcher of Baghdad

Know your BFEE: Hitler’s Bankers Shaped Vietnam War

Know your BFEE: Merchants of Death

Know your BFEE: R. James Woolsey, Turd of War

Know your BFEE: Sneering Dick Cheney, Superturd-Superrich-Supercrook

Know your BFEE: Bush Lied America into War

Know your BFEE: James R Bath – Bush – bin Laden Link

Know your BFEE: War Profiteers

Know your BFEE: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Know your BFEE: Bush and bin Laden Clans Together in Bed

Know your BFEE: Rev. Sun Myung Moon OWNS Poppy Bush

Know your BFEE: Homeland Czar & Petro-Turd Bernie Kerik

Know your BFEE: American Children Used in Radiation Experiments

Know your BFEE: Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection

Know your BFEE: The Barreling Bushes

Know your BFEE: A Crime Line of Treason

Know your BFEE: How Smirko Got Rich

Know your BFEE: George W Bush did "community service" at Project P.U.L.L.

Know your BFEE: Vote Suppressor Supreme, the Turd Bill Rehnquist

Know your BFEE: George W Bush Knew 9-11 Was Coming and Did NOTHING!

Know your BFEE: Oliver North, Drug Dealer

Know your BFEE: Pat Robertson Incorporated a Gold Mine with a Terrorist


These aren’t labeled “Know Your BFEE,” but they’re meant in the same spirit:


Poppy Bush Involved in JFK Assassination -- BFEE's Spooked!

Vietnam and Iraq Wars Started by Same People

DEA Agents Agree: CIA means Cocaine Importation Agency

BFEE Turd Daniel Pipes tied to DANISH CARTOONS

JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

Plame Affair makes clear: USA is run by TRAITORS.

A Short History of Conspiracy Theory

Note: The subject is a work in progress. The entries are not perfect, nor are they complete. They do provide a framework for a who's-who and what's-what and how we got here. Started for educational and historical purposes, these threads are meant to serve the public interest. What gives them a special quality are the contributions of DUers. May they also serve some prosecutor or historian in the future.

Thanks for asking, salguine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peggy Day Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #80
162. Wow!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #80
193. Thanks so much for posting all of the links.
I'm sure you do it from time to time, but this is the first time I've seen it. Your work is, in my humble opinion, bar none the most important (and most fascinating) work being done on DU, and I want you to know that your efforts are deeply appreciated. I totally just copied this list to a word document so I can read through it all when I have time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peggy Day Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #80
208. Why oh why don't our representatives see all this?
This criminal activity from the past, and still ongoing is robbing all of us of our retirement monies. What do they want for us-all bag ladies or men? What about our older people trying to live on their life savings?
These people are not going to stop until they have us all slaves for the very wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #208
210. well it is very simple
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 10:27 AM by leftchick
complicity. If the BFEE were completely exposed sadly a few of our reps would be found to be in collusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark D. Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #80
246. Brilliant. So I'll Include This.
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 01:29 PM by Mark D.
There was another thread where those who questioned the 'official story' were spoken badly of, a few times. I posted this and it is relevant here. Who really killed JFK? Or who we think did. My personal opinion? I cooperative effort from a few sources. He wanted to scale down Vietnam. The Military Industrial Complex his predecessor warned us about (just before he left office, probably so not sooner as he'd not be allowed to finish his term if he did, and he knew it, after all, Eisenhower was a former General) thus had a beef. When MLK talked about the biggest protest is US history, in DC, to end Vietnam, notice what happened shortly after.

The CIA screw up, partly due to the Bush/Nazi involvement in it. Kennedy fell out of favor and vise-versa. He had help from the Mafia getting elected, though not his own choice to, and he also was Catholic. So the Vatican/Romanists may have had issues. Their violent faction, the Jesuits, did their work. The head of the Secret Service on duty for his motorcade who called off the guard who was supposed to watch him most closely (and if you see the video, you see he raised his hands three times in disgust like 'WTF? Why are you telling me to get off the motorcade, I'm supposed to protect the President?') was Jesuit trained. You find this often in history.

So are several on the SCOTUS who helped push Bush upon us in 2000. But the biggest elephant of all was his desire to scale back or eliminate the Federal Reserve. I detail that more below in what I've copied and pasted. Quick Tip, look up 'secret service JFK' on YouTube to see the video of the 'stand down' order and the anger from the agent that he was being told NOT to protect the president. The very agent who would have seen Oswald's bullet hit JFK's neck (not the bullet that killed him), and probably ran and dived upon JFK to prevent the other Manchurian Candidate involved (besides Oswald) the grassy knoll shooter GHW Bush equipped from shooting him in the forehead.

Folks need to remember, every president killed in office except McKinley was in some way against that system of elite control. JFK, Harding, Garfield, Lincoln, almost Andrew Jackson. Even Teddy Roosevelt was shot by a 'lone lunatic gunman' after a speech (he survived that) later in his life. OK, let's see who he pissed off. The first target of his anti-trust actions against monopolies was JP Morgan. See below, for his role in things. Money can buy anything, all the manchurian candidates they want. Another video worth viewing is about the assassination of JFK Jr. on Google Video. It explains in clear logic why the Bush Nazi's continued the work generationally.

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

"It's NOT Tinfoil Hat."

I constantly have problems with the far right John Birch folks who demonise progressives. I constantly do battle against their radical anti-choice views and favoring the privatization of everything and trust in a totally unregulated market. They are compounds-full-of-ammo living, self-centered nuts, most often. But I have to say I agree with their views of the fallacy of this debt-based monetary system.

At its core is the Federal Reserve, IMF and other usury based tools to gain control of resources and control populations with endless debt and for-profit wars. They are on point with reservations over the head of a private banking cabal that controls the currency of a nation (that could/should issue its own money, without the debt, as Andrew Jackson did, almost being taken out by the European bankers for doing it, as Lincoln and Garfield - opponents of the Fed idea, were, and critic of the Fed, set on closing it down, JFK was also).

This is not tinfoil hat. I constantly am embarrassed by everything from stories of 'reptilians' to distrust of govt. for anything but defense and infrastructure. Go to Google Videos (it won't break it up the way You Tube does) and look up the 47 minute 'Money As Debt'. Then see the 3 1/2 hour 'The Money Changers' video. They are full of historical data, and economic reality. There is no 'conspiracy theory' crap in them.

Warburg, financier along with Rothschild, of both sides of WW1, and Schiff, financier of the overthrow of the Russian Czar, helped craft the Federal Reserve after the most destructive banker in US history (and the most powerful) JP Morgan set the ground work for it with the scare of 1907 he helped create, to 'protect us from another such downfall in the market' that actually empowered them to allow the Great Depression to happen, consolidating thousands of banks into the hands of a few, and looting billions of dollars from the bottom 90% to the top 1%, especially the top .001% those elite are in.

Morgan is the largest energy speculator, thus largely responsible for the huge uptick in gas prices we are only now recovering from. Morgan's Hedge Funds are the largest catalyst in the sub-prime debacle that cooperative GOP ilk like Gramm and McCain helped make possible in deregulation. This is all actual history. Don't shrug it off.

The last president ever to pay off the entire national debt was Andrew Jackson, and only because he got rid of a private bank issuing our capital. The idea of an executive there running the treasury is no better than Paulson, the former executive of what? A private bank, running things. Only the Fed is bigger and done lots more damage to the United States than Goldman Sachs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #246
391. Andrew Jackson "paid off" the national debt
in a way that led to the Panic of 1837-- America's first Great Depression. He got rid of the stable bank, then diverted money to his crony-operated "pet banks" and encouraged the issuance of free and easy credit to speculate in land. "Wildcat banks", among others, were only more happy to "provide" this credit by issuing their own banknotes, ostensibly in exchange for specie (gold and silver, which was the only legal tender at the time), then leaving in the dead of night when they had fleeced enough depositors, leaving them with essentially worthless paper. Then Jackson, to pay off the national debt, ordered people who got land speculation loans from the government, to pay back their loans in specie, even though a lot of these same borrowers had been fleeced by wildcat banks. So the little people paid off the national debt in a way that put a huge burden on them, leading to the Panic, which conveniently happened almost as soon as Jackson's successor (and disciple), Martin van Buren, took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #80
272. Quite a compendium of knowledge! Thank you for this! rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #80
295. May I suggest "Farewell America"
Great work, Octafish,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #295
301. Great book. It's available online...
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html

More on the book:

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellcom.html

Thank you for the kind words, Artiechoke.

What makes those threads really special is what everybody else adds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Just about to finish reading
JFK and the Unspeakable" by James Douglass. He makes a pretty compelling case that the CIA, along with the support of the Joint Chiefs and the FBI, were behind the assassination because JFK wouldn't support the idea of a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union, intended to withdraw our troops from Viet Nam, and, was working secretly with Kruschev to end the Cold War. With all of his research and documentation, it's pretty hard not to agree with his conclusions.

Apparently, however, Thom Hartman has co-authored a book on the Kennedy Assassination based on the theory that the "mob" did it.

Any thoughts on these two possibilities?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I'm a big Thom Hartman fan, but I agree with Douglass.
The mob didn't have the power to change the motorcade route.

The mob didn't have the power to order the Secret Service to stand down.

The mob didn't have the power to control the media to promote Oswald's guilt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Agreed.
Yes, the mob had the motive, and they undoubtedly had plans. But I don't think that is the way it actually went down.

Thanks Octafish!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. I just want to point out the overlap of the Mob and CIA in anti-Castro assassination plots:
In the Church Committee report:

III. B. Cuba 1. The Assassination Plots (c) Use of Underworld Figures: Phase II (Post-Bay of pigs) (82)

III. B. 3. (b) (i) (7) c. 1962 (129) (1) Did President Kennedy Learn Anything About Assassination Plots as a Result of the FBI Investigation of Giancana and Rosselli (129)

III. B. 3. (b) (iii) (2) a. The October Meeting with AM/LASH and the Use of Robert Kennedy’s Name Without Obtaining His Approval (174)

IV. Findings and Conclusions (255) A. 6. CIA Officials Made Use of Known Underworld Figures in Assassination Efforts (256)

IV. C. 1. The Apparent Lack of Accountability in the Command and Control System Was Such That the Assassination Plots Could Have Been Undertaken Without Express Authorization (261)

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


Schweiker was more blunt, saying that the Warren Commission had "collapsed like a house of cards," and that the Kennedy assassination investigation was "snuffed out before it began" by "senior intelligence officials who directed the coverup." The Schweiker-Hart Report focused on evidence and allegations that Castro was behind the JFK assassination, but also uncovered indications that these were part of a frame-up.

<snip>

So, who killed JFK?...One clue is the pre-assassination events which served, after the assassination, to focus blame on Fidel Castro - particularly the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City. Far from showing Castro's guilt, this is a red flag pointing in the direction of those who despised JFK for his perceived inaction on Cuba. Some of the earliest researchers focused their suspicions on the coalition of Cuban exiles, mob members, and CIA officers who conspired to eliminate Fidel Castro. Many of the circumstantial leads, and indeed confessions of guilt, still lie in that direction.

CIA files declassified in the 1990s provide tantalizing clues in regards to the compartmentalization of knowledge about Oswald and actions which would later be used to spin the "Communist assassin" angle. Oswald's records were tightly held in James Angleton's CounterIntelligence division, shielded from other parts of the CIA - which were fed false information. Legendary CIA propaganda artist David Phillips recurs in this story in unexplained ways, as do others involved in the CIA-Mafia plots, such as Johnny Roselli.

The old adage "someone would have talked" may not apply to professional killers and sophisticated organizations. The Church Committee, with full Congressional backing and subpoena power, was still unable to get to the bottom of some basic questions about the plots to kill Fidel Castro, including the simple question of whether Presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy actually authorized them. The Committee ran into a system of "plausible deniability," cut-outs, and need-to-know information handling that made that task simply impossible. If it weren't for this unusual Committee, CIA plots to murder Castro might still be regarded as a "conspiracy theory."
...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. Then who did?? If you ask yourself this question there can only
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 07:01 PM by ailsagirl
be one answer.

Video of SS ordering subordinate SS to stand down:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-57709843954814...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
92. How do you know for certain that he wasn't simply castigated for farting upwind of the following car
You don't. How do you know that it wasn't JFK's words that caused his superior to get his attention? You don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #92
178. Because it is obvious from the film that the agent who
spreads out his arms as if to ask what did I do wrong? Why are you calling me off didn't know what happened. The idea that JFK would have called off the Secret Service at that point is just silly. You are in denial about what you see in that scene.

Somewhere, after the assassination, the Secret Service officers knew who had called them off. They were sworn to secrecy. There is not much doubt that the Agent who had his hands spread out felt that something was very wrong when he was called off of his post.

For me, that short video clip is conclusive evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #178
258. Thank you for giving an intelligent answer to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #37
311. Henry J. Rybka was the Secret Service agent who asked ''Why?''


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

Here's what Vincent M. Palamara has reported:



AGENTS GO ON RECORD:

JFK DID NOT ORDER SECRET SERVICE OFF DALLAS LIMOUSINE
KENNEDY NEVER ORDERED SECURITY STAND-DOWN OR BUBBLE-TOP REMOVAL
PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY MYSTERIOUSLY "STRIPPED" AND OTHERWISE
COMPROMISED FOR FATAL MOTORCADE
SECRET SERVICE IGNORING OF ADVANCE WARNING OF THREATS DOCUMENTED

"HISTORY" CORRECTED 35 YEARS LATER BY PRIMARY SOURCES


by Vincent M. Palamara
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following news story, by historian and researcher Vincent M. Palamara, sets the record straight regarding the long-repeated falsehood that President John F. Kennedy was somehow responsible for his own assassination because he ordered Secret Service agents off his open car and otherwise fatally undermined the performance of his bodyguards. Palamara, widely recognized as the preeminent expert on Secret Service personnel and procedures during the Kennedy era, has secured the first on-the-record comments from agents in the presidential detail of November 22, 1963 and other primary sources.)

These mutually corroborating stories shed important new light on the conspiracy to murder the president, and put an end to groundless, designed-to-mislead speculation that has plagued the assassination investigation from its inception and otherwise contributed to the obstruction of justice. C.R.D.)

The following former Secret Service agents told me in on-the-record interviews, and in no uncertain terms, that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of his car, was not difficult to protect and was in fact extremely cooperative with the Secret Service:
    Gerald A. Behn (chief of JFK's detail),
    Floyd M. Boring (#2 JFK detail agent),
    Arthur L. Godfrey (one of three shift leaders on the Texas trip),
    Donald J. Lawton (on the Dallas JFK detail),
    Rufus W. Youngblood (#2 agent on Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson's detail),
    Samuel A. Kinney (driver of the Secret Service follow-up car in Dallas),
    Robert I. Bouck (head of the Protective Research Section),
    Robert Lilley (a member of JFK's detail from election night until one month before Dallas),
    Maurice G. Martineau (agent in charge of the Chicago office) and
    John Norris (a member of the Uniformed Division)


Agents off the rear of limo

Representative responses by former Secret Service agents and others to my question, "Did JFK ever 'order agents around', including having them dismount the rear area of the limousine?" were as follows:

Kinney (interviewed on 10/19/92, 3/5/94, 4/15/94) -- "Absolutely, positively no. He (JFK) had nothing to do with that, no, never ... President Kennedy was one of the easiest presidents to protect ... ninety nine percent of the agents would agree."

Lilley (interviewed 9/27/92, 9/21/93, 6/7/96) -- "I'm sure he did not. He was very cooperative with us once he became president. Basically, (his attitude was) 'whatever you guys want is the way it will be.'"

Godfrey (interviewed 5/30/96, 6/7/96; correspondence 11/24/97) -- (JFK) never ordered us to do anything. He was a very nice man ... cooperative. He never asked me to have my shift leave the limo when we were working it."

Behn (interviewed three times on 9/27/92) -- "I don't remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn't want anybody on the back of his car. I think if you watch the newsreel pictures and whatnot, you'll find agents on there from time to time."

A photo from the Tampa Tribune of November 19, 1963 -- three days before the assassination -- clearly supports Behn's contention. It depicts agents Donald Lawton and Charles Zboril on the rear of JFK's limousine in both urban and suburban areas, during a politically significant, high-visibility presidential visit to Florida.

One of the earliest and arguably most influential (to this day) misrepresentation of JFK's relationship to the Secret Service, and in particular to agents on his various details, can be found in "Death of a President," by William Manchester. One passage in particular exemplifies the lengths to which "respected" historians such as Manchester have gone, knowingly or otherwise, to falsify the record.

"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)

When asked to comment on the record about that portion of "Death of a President," Boring said that the statement attributed to him by Manchester is, to say the least, inaccurate. "He quotes me?" Boring asked incredulously. "I never told him (that JFK ordered agents off the limousine). (JFK) was a very nice man, never interfered with us at all." Indeed, Boring stated that he was not interviewed by Manchester-- a fact that is confirmed by the book's source notes.

Until publication of this article and its correction of the record by first-person sources, the Manchester-originating falsehoods, among others relating to the assassination in general and Secret Service in Dallas in particular, have been accepted and repeated as fact by a mainstream media bereft of alternative testimony.

The assessments of JFK as a "security-friendly" chief executive were confirmed during on-the-record interviews with JFK aide Dave Powers and White House photographer Cecil Stoughton (both in the Dallas motorcade), and with June Kellerman, widow of Roy H. Kellerman, the #3 agent on the JFK detail.


Removal of the bubble-top

Another controversy with direct bearing on the criminal investigation of the assassination relates to the origin of the order to remove the bubble-top from the presidential limousine. Kinney adamantly told me that he, and not the president, was solely responsible for the removal of the presidential limousine's clear roof on November 22, 1963. However, in testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, agents Kellerman and Win Lawson spoke of their involvement in that critical decision.

Kinney passed away on July 21, 1997. This correspondent cannot be definitive regarding the number of individuals involved in the decision to remove the bubble-top. However, based upon thorough investigation of the issue, the strong possibility exists that Lawson, acting through Kellerman and/or Boring, either gave the order or was represented as having given it.


Reduction of motorcycle outriders

The frequently repeated story that JFK ordered a reduction in the presence of motorcycle outriders in the Dallas motorcade is in need of correction. Although presidential motorcades on all prior stops on the November, 1963 Texas trip normally included anywhere from three to six cyclists on each side of the JFK limousine (a fact confirmed by numerous press and official White House films and photographs), the plans for Dallas were altered by Secret Service officials to give JFK just four non-flanking outriders.

Thus the presidential limousine was opened to crossfire, and the perceptions of professionally trained eye- and ear-witnesses were eliminated from the scene of the crime. Former agents Kinney and Godfrey confirmed that JFK never gave direct or implicit instructions to remove motorcycles from security positions adjacent to his car. Further, films and photographs of prior Texas trip stops clearly show a heavy motorcycle outrider presence during motorcades, up to and including the Fort Worth motorcade of November 21, 1963.

The origin of the order to strip presidential security by reducing motorcycle-based security remains mysterious, and carries sinister implications.


Security Stripping

Could Dallas have been deemed a sufficiently non-threatening environment so as to justify a stripping of presidential security? Not according to on-the-record comments from former agents Kellerman and Abraham Bolden (to the Warren Commission and this correspondent, respectively). They stated that they were at a loss to explain or otherwise find justification for the at least three separate checks for threats and harmful subjects in Dallas conducted by the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service that produced negative results.

Given the city's history, including the 1963 attacks there against Adlai Stevenson, the acknowledged presence in Dallas of radical, violence-prone Right Wing groups and anti-Castro operatives, and the knowledge, commonly and officially held within the Secret Service and the Kennedy administration, of ongoing, non-location-specific threats against the president, those results were, in the opinion of interviewees, highly unusual.

Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee advance man for the Dallas trip, told this correspondent that he was hearing all sorts of assassination rumors just 18 hours prior to the actual shooting. Underwood said that he conveyed this information to JFK, who told him not to worry. Former agent Kinney further stated that there was an assassination threat in Florida on November 18, 1963. Former agent Bouck said that he too was aware of the active pre-Dallas threats.


Additional fatal flaws in presidential security during the Dallas trip include:

MOTORCADE ROUTE -- The route of the presidential parade violated Secret Service protocol by involving turns of 90 and 120 degrees. During interviews with this correspondent, the route was strongly criticized by former DNC advance man Underwood and former uniformed Secret Service agent Norris. In addition, Jerry Behn, the # 1 agent in JFK's detail, told me that the Dallas route was changed from another, as yet unknown route -- a fact he offered, under oath and in executive session, to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. That testimony remains, as of the date of this publication, unpublished. Former agents Lawson and Kinney confirmed to me that alternate routes (two, according to Kinney) were available.

PUBLICATION OF MOTORCADE ROUTE -- Although Secret Service Chief James J. Rowley adamantly denied to the Warren Commission that his agency was responsible for the newspaper printing of the Dallas motorcade route, I have traced this critical decision to LBJ aide Bill Moyers, who in turn attributes it to "the agent in charge of the Dallas trip."

THE RYBKA TAPE -- An important discovery was made by this correspondent during review of video of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC television affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Henry J. Rybka begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow-up car detail, Emory P. Roberts.

Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow-up car passes him. He was not being allowed to do his job -- and it was not JFK who was ordering the stand-down.

Despite the discovery by this correspondent of three reports to the contrary (two by Roberts) written on November 22, 1963, this newly discovered photographic evidence confirms that frustrated and vocal-in-his-objections Rybka did not enter the follow-up car and was left behind at the airport.

THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF AGENT ROBERTS -- The activities of Emory P. Roberts during as well as before the shooting are difficult to understand. As the first shots were fired, he recalled agent John D. Ready, who was attempting to run to the president's car. The initial explanation for this order -- the speed of and distance between the cars was too great for effective protective measures to be taken -- has been contradicted by photographic and eyewitness testimony.

And Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car who was seated beside Roberts, said that his shift leader, upon hearing what he later admitted he immediately knew to be a rifle shot, ordered his agents not to move.

Thus, during the most critical seconds of the Dallas motorcade, John F. Kennedy was denied potentially life-saving protection as the result of a direct order given by a ranking member of the United States Secret Service.

During taped interviews and/or in signed correspondence, several agents and others stated for the record that they believe JFK was a victim of a conspiracy. These individuals include agents Kinney, Bolden, Martineau and Norris, and DNC advance man Underwood.

In addition, according to his widow and daughter, agent Kellerman "knew" that there was more to the assassination than has been officially acknowledged.

The suspect actions and inaction of Secret Service agents during the planning stage of the 1963 Texas trip, and in the Dallas motorcade on November 22, 1963, cry out for explanation.

Thanks to the courage of former Secret Service agents who told the truth for the record, defenders of the discredited Warren Commission theory of the assassination no longer can accuse JFK of complicity in his own murder. One fact remains clear: President Kennedy did not seal his own fate by ordering his guards to stand down.

That order originated elsewhere.

- 30 -


(BIOGRAPHICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE -- Vincent M. Palamara is a graduate of Duquesne University. His research into the Secret Service aspects of the assassination of John F. Kennedy began in 1988. Since then he has contacted more than 35 former agents, White House aides and family members of their deceased colleagues. In 1997 he published "The Third Alternative -- Survivors' Guilt: The Secret Service and the JFK Murder" . This book-length analysis, in which interviews appearing in this LancerLINE story are used at length, has garnered rave reviews from the magazines "Probable Cause" and "Lobster", and from the scholarly journal "The Fourth Decade." Mr. Palamara's articles have appeared in "The Fourth Decade," "The Investigator", "BackChannels", "Lobster" and "Kennedy Assassination Chronicles." He has been credited for research assistance in the following books: "High Treason 2: Killing the Truth," by Harrison Livingstone, 'Treachery in Dallas," by Walt Brown, "Bloody Treason," by Noel Twyman, "Assassination Science," edited by James Fetzer, "That Day in Dallas," by Richard Trask, and others. He is associate editor for "JFK Deep Politics Quarterly".

Mr. Palamara has presented papers at many of the major JFK assassination scholarly meetings. He has his own web page: www.njmetronet.com/jfkdpq/v/palamara.html "The Third Alternative" is available through JFK Lancer Productions<www.jfklancer.com >.)

(LancerLINE REPUBLICATION AND INTERVIEW POLICIES -- This story may be republished, in whole or in part, without fees and with full permission by its author and LancerLINE, under the following conditions: Author (Palamara) and source (LancerLINE) credits must be included. Copyright and other ownership rights are retained by the author.

JFK Lancer Needs Your Help If you find this site useful, important, or entertaining, please consider a donation of any amount.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html





Thank you for caring, ailsagirl. This information would drive most anybody crazy, were it not shared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #311
330. As for the removal of the bubble-top...

other conspiracy investigators (Don Fulsom in particular) noted that Nixon and Pepsi-heiress Joan Crawford were in Dallas several days prior to the assassination and were driving around in a convertable with the top pulled down. Afterward, Nixon had taunted JFK in the press by noting that he (Nixon) didn't have to worry about using a protective bubble because people in Dallas were not angry with him. It is speculated that this may be why JFK desired not to use maximum protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #330
342. The bubble top on JFK's limo was NOT bullet proof. It was for weather protection.
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 01:35 PM by stopbush
There would have been no added protection, let alone "maximum" protection.

The roll-up windows on the limo were bullet proof, but as all of Oswald's shots (the ONLY shots) came from the back, they wouldn't have helped either.

Get the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #342
380. If only you could see forest for trees...

the bubble-top could have certainly helped improve his chances for survival.

JFK may have requested that the SS not walk alongside the car, like they normally would, so as not to appear overly paranoid in light of Nixon's comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #380
389. Or, the bubble top could have meant that shards of glass entered Kennedy along with the bullets.
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 10:32 PM by stopbush
What WOULD have helped would have been to have two SS agents riding on the back fender of the limo, obstructing Oswald's line of fire. That might have meant any number of things, from Oswald taking his shots while the limo was still on Houston, to having to kill the SS agent behind JFK to get a clear shot at JFK once the limo turned onto Elm, to Oswald foregoing the shooting all together. OR, Oswald could have seen the bubble top and assumed it was bullet proof and foregone the shooting.

But that's not the way it went down, so it's all moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #311
331. dupe n/t
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 02:01 AM by AntiFascist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
170. Exactly!
I never believed the lone assassin theory and I still don't. We were fed a meal of bullshit that's left a rotten taste in my mouth for 45 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missie56 Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
198. And the mob didn't have the power to cover it all up
by appointing the Commission.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
376. My take on the role of the Mob
I think the Mob was the temp service for the CIA dirty work for the JFK assassination. The Mob had the resources bring in shooters from pretty much anywhere in the criminal network, even foreign shooters. The Mobs role was comparatively small against the CIA's role, they were just hired help, including Ruby. They were expendable, even big shots like Sam Giancana, who was murdered the day before he was to testify in front of the Church Committee.
JFK's assassination was definitely an inside job, a coup d'etat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. The two aren't mutually exclusive
According to Retired Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Marvin (quoted in Douglass' book)

"It was common knowledge in Mafia and CIA circles that the Green Berets were tapped by the Company to terminate selected 'targets' in foreign countries, whereas the Mafia provided the CIA's pool of able assassins for hits in the U.S." (Douglass, p. 320.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
234. think it is the mob PLUS the CIA
CIA had ties to the mob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
263. The mob couldn't have controlled the motorcade route
Nor could it have had any impact on the Warren Commission.

The questions to ask are:

Who benefitted?
Who had the power to cover it up?

The limousine in which JFK rode was washed out at Parkland hospital immediately after the crime-- wouldn't that be EVIDENCE? In fact, within two days the car was on its way back to the Ford Motor Company in Detroit where it was dismantled. Who would have the authority to authorize that? It was the crime scene, for God's sake. Evidence destroyed. Someone very high up had to have ordered this. But who?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chromotone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
373. "...the CIA, along with the support of the Joint Chiefs and the FBI, were behind the assassination"
I remember when James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" came out and reading about "Operation Northwoods" how it all began to make sense.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Lyman Lemnitzer approached Kennedy with a plan to kill and terrorize Americans in order to get an invasion on with Cuba. Kennedy nixed it and was killed three years later. I don't think this was a coincidence.

Fast forward 40 years and replace "Kennedy" with "Bush" and "Cuba" with "Iraq" and you've got 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. It was what I woke up thinking about this morning. November 22, 1963.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 04:53 PM by seafan
That awful day 45 years ago.


It's felt like we've been in a trance as a country ever since. A cold, paralyzing pall that has affected us in body and spirit. My parents were never the same after that day. It ripped America apart as nothing else.

For all of these years, the perpetrators and their accomplices have carefully nurtured the cover-up of what happened that day.


I so fervently hope, as you have stated, that this will be reexamined by a cleansed and restored Department of Justice and the truth allowed to see the light of day. We will never heal as a country unless we know the truth of this tragedy and how certain families and associates engineered it and buried what they did.


The loss of President Kennedy paved the way to 45 years of murder, war, greed, poverty and destruction, from which we are still struggling to escape.


Peace, Octafish.





GHWB at Gerald Ford's eulogy, January 2, 2007







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The country has not been the same place.
It seems to me:

Before November 22, 1963, every human life mattered.

Since then, it's a case where the more money you have, the more you matter.

Power for Profit. Profit for Power. And War speeds both.

JFK said, "Let's go to the moon." And We the People figured out how to do the impossible in less than a decade.

Today, we may be less than a decade away from being a continental-sized Haiti.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. America and the world have never been the same.
I can't help wondering how things would have been had he been allowed to live?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
48. Not the case
every white human mattered. JFK was willing to kiss the southern Demos ass to achieve his program. Lets go to the moon, blank check to NASA, jack shit to the poor and helpless. Vietnam, when He took office, 300 advisors (3 companies) when he died, 16,000 (a full division).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
179. Right. Kennedy's assassination marked the loss of innocence in the U.S.
We became a nation led by cynics and tools of cynics.

Goldwater ran on the Republican ticket in 2004. Ayn Rand became popular, and many, apparently including Greenspan and the right-wing side of the Republican Party abandoned human values, abandoned social morality and embraced a totally selfish, arrogant political philosophy.

We are now reaping the disaster that follows when the disease of Goldwaterism and Ayn Randism spread through our country. If you haven't read Ayn Rand, do. It's disgusting stuff. When I was in college, I read virtually everything she wrote. Her tales are seductive to the young. The idea that you are only responsible for yourself, that you do not answer to the moral judgments of others, that you do not need to care about their needs, that just being yourself and realizing your personal potential is the most important thing in life is intriguing and exciting until you really fall in love and care for another person and discover that the grown-up world is not just about you, until you discover that the greatest joy is in caring about someone else.

Kennedy had his faults, but he symbolized the good human being that most Americans want to be.

By the way, Republicans criticize Kennedy for his womanizing, but they don't mention how common womanizing was at the time. It was a kind of given, especially in the upper social strata.

Remember, birth control didn't become readily available until after Kennedy was elected. In his day and age, men either impregnated their wives repeatedly (as did Robert Kennedy and many, many other Americans), or couples used unreliable forms of birth control or, couples abstained from or limited conjugal relations. Often, especially if the wife was told not to have more children, the last choice was the only really viable one -- and men sought alternative relationships. That was the way of life.

Women's lib and the sexual revolution kind of put an end to the idea that there were good girls and bad girls and all of the stereotypes and conventions that went with that. So, while the official sexual morality did not really change, in fact, the real social mores regarding sex changed a lot. In my opinion, couples generally tend to me more honest with each other today than they were then. The Kennedys might have had a very different relationship had they been born 20 or 30 years later. So, don't judge Kennedy by his conduct with regard to sex. The series "Mad Men" reflects a lot of what was common sexist behavior at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
219. November 22, 1963, through the eyes of a child
Forty Five Years

By bmaz
Firedoglake

November 22, 2008


Where were you forty five years ago today? If you were old enough to remember at all, then you undoubtedly remember where you were on Friday November 22, 1963 at 12:30 pm central standard time.

I was at a desk, two from the rear, in the left most row, in Mrs. Hollingshead's first grade class. Each kid had their own desk, and they were big, made out of solid wood and heavy. They had to be heavy, of course, because they were going to protect us when we ducked and covered from a Soviet nuclear strike. There were, as there were in most elementary school classrooms of the day, a large clock and a big speaker on the wall up above the teacher's desk.

I can't remember what subject we were working on, but the principal's voice suddenly came over the loudspeaker. This alone meant there was something important up, because that only usually occurred for morning announcements at the start of the school day and for special occasions. The voice of Mr. Flake, the principal, was somber, halting and different; perhaps detached is the word. There was a prelude to the effect that this was a serious moment and that the teachers should make sure that all students were at their desks and that all, both young and old, were to pay attention.

There had occurred a tragic and shocking event that we all needed to know about. Out attention was required.

Then the hammer fell and our world literally caved in.

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy had been assassinated. Shot and killed in Dallas Texas. Then without a moment's pause, we were told that the nation was safe, Vice-President Johnson was in charge, the government was functioning and that we need not have any concerns about our own safety. We were not at war.

Twenty four some odd little hearts stopped, plus one from Mrs. Hollingshead. You could literally feel the life being sucked out of the room like air lost to a vacuum. Many of us began looking out the window, because no matter what Mr. Flake said, if our President was dead, we were at war and the warheads were coming. They had to be in the sky. They were going to be there.

.....







Falling snow blankets the hillside in front of Arlington House while the eternal flame on John F. Kennedy's grave burns on.

Photo by Tom Mani



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
282. I was a junior in high school --
While it was shocking and upsetting at the time, I didn't realize the extent to which I had buried the pain of those three assassinations until the last two weeks before the election of Barack Obama. It would pop into my head and I would just start shaking and sobbing. I suppose my awareness of those tragedies were combined with the shame and horror of the past eight years, but I finally came to realize that these events are all of a piece. They are all connected, and have been a cancer in our government that has metastacized to the point of bringing our society to the brink of death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dglow Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #282
303. JFK's Death
I, too, was a junior in high school on that tragic day that shattered our hope and led to years of nightmare. Recently my graduating class gathered in the high school reunion on the afternoon of our reunion. A classmate had pieced together a DVD about the events in our lives during the turbulent 60s. There was great laughter and hooting until the image of JFK appeared in the Lincoln Continental, his arms lifting as the first bullet struck him in the neck. The entire auditorium went silent, a pall that lasted several moments.

As boomers, we'd been born just after WWII, when jobs were plentiful and while the Cold War was heating up, it took some time for the Soviet Union to build it's nuclear arsonal. Times were good and the country had no appetite for war. With the election of JFK, so brilliant and youthful we felt anything was possible, even flying to the moon. I always believed that the assasination was plotted by insiders, and have not trusted our government since.

The nightmare continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stahbrett Donating Member (855 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. The killer was already killed
I do admit that it's more interesting to think that there was a big conspiracy of the mob, CIA, communists, and/or some other group. But all of the evidence supports the lone gunman theory, and Lee Harvey Oswald being that gunman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Do you have a link to "all of the evidence?" Thank you n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bagrman Donating Member (889 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
233. Here's a link to an interview with an old CIA guy by the name of Crowley,
Seems that he had a lot to get off his chest before he died. It's a very good read on things that you may or may not have heard of and why they happened. The Ken nedy's and MLK are brought up in the earlier conversations and take the fore front in the later ones.
Conversations with the Crow.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?id=68

Latr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. The ''accused'' killer.
Here's what Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, said:



On Receiving the Mary Ferrell-JFKLancer Pioneer Award
for Lifetime Achievement in the Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Dallas, November 21, 1998


Gaeton Fonzi

EXCERPT...

The Warren Commission wrong? The United States Government wrong?

Impossible. Vince Salandria must be some kind of nut. Or maybe just a publicity-seeking shyster. Either way, he'd make an interesting little story. I vividly remember my first visit with Salandria in the paneled basement office of his row home on Delancey Street in Center City. He was 38 years old then, a Penn Law graduate, a man of modest stature and demeanor, with olive skin, dark eyes and a thin, serious face. His voice was a soft velvet but he spoke with a deep intellectual intensity. Funny, he didn't look or sound like a nut.

Salandria told me his interest in the Warren Commission had begun shortly after it was formed because he didn't like the fact that it was holding secret hearings. He began to monitor its activities as best he could from news clips and unofficial reports. He spent his vacation in Dallas to familiarize himself with the murder scene. He ordered the Commission's Report and its 26 volumes of evidence as soon as they were issued and plunged into a page-by-page study.

"My initial feeling," Salandria told me, "was that if this were a simple assassination, as the Commission claimed, the facts would come together very neatly. If there were more than one assassin the details would not fit." Salandria claimed the details did not fit. He told me there were blatant contradictions between the Commission's conclusions and the evidence in the 26 volumes.

Blatant contradictions? That was hard to believe. These were smart, brilliant men on the Warren Commission, they wouldn't permit such flagrant inaccuracy. But Salandria gave me his extra copy of the Report and its 26 volumes of evidence and suggested that I take the time to study them carefully.

I did. And Salandria was right. It was unequivocally clear that the details did not fit. There were blatant contradictions between the Report's conclusions and the Commission's own evidence in its 26 volumes.

The truth had hit me upside the head and still I refused to embrace it. There had to be some valid explanation for the contradictions and I knew the man who would give me that explanation was Arlen Specter. I had known Arlen before he went off to the Warren Commission, considered him not only smart but tough and courageous. I had written about the guts he had to successfully prosecute the politically powerful but corrupt boss of the local Teamsters Union. I was sure that once I sat down with Specter he would explain and clear up all those apparent contradictions in the Warren Report.

Local reporters had, of course, asked Specter about the Warren Report when it was released. He was vigorous in defense of its conclusions. He called the Commission's investigation the most exhaustive and complete in history. The single bullet theory, he insisted, was the only possible way to explain how Lee Harvey Oswald had shot President Kennedy. The reporters dutifully reported what he said.

Amazingly enough, even after all those months had gone by since the release of the Warren Report, I was the first journalist to ask Specter about specific details and about the Report's inconsistencies. I apparently caught Specter off guard.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/gfonzi.html



As an investigator for Congress, Fonzi found that the physical evidence of the case -- the President's clothing alone -- indicated conspiracy. Throw in what the eyewitnesses saw and it is a very different picture than what J Edgar Hoover painted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. LHO was set up. He said so himself, calling himself a "patsy"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
74. And Republicans call themselves victims when their dirty tricks backfire.
Your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
255. My point is that Oswald was not "the lone gun man"
That theory is preposterous. He was set up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
94. And every prison inmate is "innocent", just ask him or her, they'll swear to it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #94
390. Political assassins are usually proud to admit their crimes n/t
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 10:36 PM by Artiechoke
Which is why I doubt that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucognizant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
196. I seem to be in the spot where the dots land just for the connecting.........
We lived around the corner from Vince Salndria, his son was in my daughter's class, ( as was Kevin Bacon) 2 more of our neighbors and members of our babysitting co-op were on the Warren Commission. ................Another friend's Father, successfully defended one of the Black Panthers and brough him home after the trial for his safety!
A decade later, I was traveling in an interesting Washington insider crowd, painting murals.( Guess I should write a book)
Spent a couple of weeks painting one in the neighborhood where THE FELLOWSHIP was located! (Google it if you don't know it. When Baldacci became Gov of Maine, there was a curious story in the Bangor Daily News, disclaiming his association with them. While in COngress, he had rented a room in their boarding house!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
47. "All of the evidence" supports your desire not to have to think about it. Go ahead and put your
fingers in your ears and shut your eyes and you will be much happier. A cheap chardonnay will also work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
129. Except that it was impossible. Minor detail.
Impossible for Oswald to make the shots, and impossible for the magic bullet to do what it did. Other than that, you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #13
167. One can ascribe to the 'lone gunman theory' and STILL accept a conspiracy existed ...
There is a distinct thread between three assassinations of that era: The same people who would want John Kennedy dead where the same people who would want Bobby and Martin dead ....

It is no coincidence that all three were killed with a few years .... and there are few organizations that have the ability to carry out such decisions and leave few clues ...

Just because Oswald was the shooter doesnt mean he wasnt placed into that position to do exactly what he did, on the behalf of others ..... The killing of all three of those LIBERAL figures was not the coincidence of three disparate misanthropes acting on their own behalf ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
180. Watch the video that is linked to above. That is strong evidence
that there was some arrangement to leave the presidential vehicle without proper Secret Service protection. That video indicates that there was a coordinated effort that involved Secret Service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
213. I bet you know where all the WMDs are also!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyinblack Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. What I do not understand
Perhaps I am missing something but why would the Kennedy's not have continued an investigation until they were satisfied that the one or ones responsible had been brought to justice?
I have long suspected there was much more than we knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Two schools of thought...
1. The surviving brothers and family believed that they needed to regain the White House to uncover and prosecute the conspirators. Bobby Kennedy indicated to his colleagues that was his intention days before he was killed in Los Angeles.

2. The surviving brothers wanted to preserve the positive public image of their brother and believed that an investigation would uncover evidence of JFK's involvement in CIA plans to assassinate Fidel Castro.

The evidence, I believe, favors #1.



The Mother of All Cover-Ups

Forty years after the Warren Report, the official verdict on the Kennedy assassination, we now know the country's high and mighty were secretly among its biggest critics


by David Talbot
This article first appeared in the September 15, 2004 issue of Salon.com

Once again, we find ourselves in the season of the Official Report: the 9/11 Commission Report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, the Schlesinger inquiry on Abu Ghraib, among others. And once again the official version is under fire.

The 9/11 Report has been attacked for leaning over backwards, in the spirit of bipartisan unanimity, to avoid pinning blame on the Bush administration for its casual attitude toward terrorist alerts before the calamity and for sidestepping the issue of Saudi involvement. But at least it's won a measure of public respect, due in large part to the vigilance of 9/11 victims' families.

The Senate report on the intelligence failures leading to the Iraq catastrophe has not fared as well, undoubtedly because it lacked the same public oversight. This report went to even greater extremes to keep Bush out of the crosshairs. As Thomas Powers wrote in the New York Review of Books, "No tyrannical father presiding over an intimidated household was ever tiptoed around with greater caution than is the figure of President George W. Bush in the (committee's) fat report."

And the Schlesinger Report on Abu Ghraib has quickly earned itself an utterly contemptuous response, eliciting widespread outrage for giving Defense Secetary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon a sweeping pass on the reign of torture at the prison. While the world shuddered in horror at descriptions of the Abu Ghraib mayhem, James Schlesinger, the former defense secretary picked by Rumsfeld to chair the civilian commission, was considerably less agitated in his response. "Animal house," he blithely called the prison's chambers of violent perversity, a casual assessment which mirrored the forgiving views of Rush Limbaugh, who dismissed the scandal as a frat party gone wild.

So it is only appropriate, in this stormy season of the official version and its discontents, that we observe the 40th anniversary of the Warren Report -- the mother of all such controversies. The vast, 26-volume report was delivered by commission chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, to President Johnson on Sept. 24, 1964. The Warren Report concluded that President Kennedy was the victim of a lone, unstable assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald -- as was, conveniently, Oswald himself just two days later, when he was gunned down in the Dallas police station by mob-connected hustler Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission -- itself the victim of massive fraud and manipulation by the FBI and CIA -- came under immediate fire from critics, with its report being denounced as a government cover-up by a growing army of independent researchers. History has not been any kinder to the Warren Report, which has been derided and condemned by everyone from the House Select Committee on Assassinations -- the only other federal panel to exhaustively probe Kennedy's murder, and which found in 1979 that the president was the probable target of a conspiracy -- to Oliver Stone in his explosive 1991 film "JFK" to the History Channel, which routinely airs even the outer limits of conspiracy theories.

Four decades later, the Warren Report is widely regarded as a whitewash, with polls consistently showing that the majority of Americans reject the official version of Kennedy's death. (The Assassination Archives and Research Center will hold a conference to discuss the latest scholarship on the crime in Dallas and the Warren investigation from Sept. 17 - 19 in Washington D.C. Information is available on its Web site: http://aarclibrary.org .)

CONTINUED...

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/talbot.htm



Thanks for caring! And a hearty welcome to DU, Ladyinblack!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. The CIA and mafia may have been tightly interwoven at certain levels...

most likely the spheres surrounding Richard Nixon and other high-level Republicans. Robert Kennedy wanted to go after the mob, but he knew that he had to get elected first. The book that his people allegedly had ghost-written: "Farewll America: The Plot to Kill JFK" was to become part of his campaign, but was initially only published in France after his death. The back cover of the book, now available in the US, reads: "..the linkage between large corporate and banking interests, the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and Mafia chieftains against JFK...The bottom line was that enemies of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the percived threat to their interests by John and Robert Kennedy." First published in 1968.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. There were many "rogue" elements in the CIA who did what they
wanted. Kennedy wasn't going to stand for this. He said he was going to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds..."

That didn't sit too well with the Powers That Be. Nor did Kennedy's plan for troop withdrawal from Vietnam the next month (which was quietly dropped once LBJ took office).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chemical Bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #41
96. I don't like the word "rogue" in this context.
My perception is that there are two parts to the CIA:

A group of people who gather intelligence vital to American interests (see Valerie Plame Wilson).

A group of assassins who smuggle drugs, working for private interests, mainly corporate (see BFEE).

Jimmy Carter went against this second group. They in turn supplied weapons to
Iran, possibly starting before the 1980 election, reportedly to use the hostages as pawns in that election. At least they didn't assassinate Carter.

Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #41
181. This looks like an excellent summary of the history of the CIA and how JFK crossed them...
http://brainmind.com/CIAKennedyAssassination.pdf


...

What we know is that Kennedy had made a number of very
deadly enemies, including former CIA director Allen Dulles, whom
he had fired. We also know that despite his firing and his hatred for
Kennedy, Allen Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission
which investigated Kennedy’s assassination.

Who else was in Dallas that morning?

Vice-President Johnson, former vice-President Nixon, FBI
director J. Edgar Hoover, Chase Manhattan bank president and future
Warren Commission member John McCloy, and a George Bush
oil-business partner, George Brown (of Brown and Root)
. Indeed,
according to Madeleine Brown, Johnson’s mistress, these men attended
a small party on the evening before the assassination, which
was hosted by Clint Murchison. According to Ms. Brown (53):
“The group . . . went behind closed doors. A short time later
Lyndon, anxious and red-faced, re-appeared. I knew how secretly
Lyndon operated. Therefore I said nothing.” When Johnson emerged
from the meeting, he squeezed “my hand so hard, it felt crushed
from the pressure, he spoke with a grating whisper, a quiet growl,
into my ear, not a love message, but one I’ll always remember:
“After tomorrow those g—d— Kennedys will never embarrass me
again - that’s no threat - that’s a promise.”

Perhaps Ms. Brown is mistaken. Perhaps Johnson never uttered
such a prophetic message. However, that he disliked the
Kennedys and feared he would not be on the ticket for Kennedy’s
second term, is well known.


Also, later in the document it discusses E. Howard Hunt's role with the CIA and involvement in Watergate.


One year after Hunt’s CNN interview (76) detailed above,
former CIA officer Victor Marchetti alleged in the August 14, 1978
edition of The Spotlight, a Washington newspaper, that “some of
the figures in the conspiracy” included
“Howard Hunt, Gerry Hemming, a long-time Cuba mercenary, and
Frank Sturgis, one of Hunt’s fellow Watergate burglars.” In that
same article, it was alleged that George Bush also played a role in
the Kennedy assassination and it was suggested that the link was
Hunt and the Cubans who had been trained for the failed Bay of
Pigs invasion of Cuba.

These allegations, of course came after Watergate and the
fall of Nixon. In 1974, at the height of the Watergate investigation,
George H.W. Bush was faced with the possibility that the entire
damn might break and that the avalanche of material that might be
uncovered could bury him alive.

Bush was so frightened, he “broke out into assholes and shit
himself to death.”

If Nixon was impeached, the investigation would follow the
money trail, the Bay of Pigs trail, the E. Howard Hunt trail, the
Kennedy trail, and it might lead to George H.W. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #181
254. Thanks for posting. It was clear that JFK was working against the
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 02:14 PM by ailsagirl
agenda of those behind the scenes. God forbid we should withdraw troops from Vietnam!!!

Remember Ike's warning about "the military industrial complex."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Foxman Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
90. It was JFK Jr. who told Barbara Walters a few years before his death
"All this talk about my father's death won't do the one thing that matters most to me. It won't bring him back."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
147. Why haven't the Kennedys
looked harder into the inconsistencies behind JFK Jr.'s improbable plane crash, and the media inaccuracies surrounding it?

Am I going off the deep end here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #147
161. Jackie Kennedy commissioned a private investigation into her husband's death
She hired investigators from France, not trusting anyone here in the United States, and the French investigators she hired where highly recommended as having a sterling reputation. She received the report and determined that it would not be released, I believe until 50 years following HER death. There was a 50 year deadline, and I believe it was as I stated above. The deadline was set to protect her children. At the time I learned about it, I remembered thinking with much sadness I would never live long enough to know what that report had told her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #161
291. Read "Farewell America" online (authored by French intel)
The book had only a brief run in the states.

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellturner.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. kr for Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. ''The world was shattered and everything just shut down.''
From a person who was there, words that explain what I've felt for 45 years:





JFK ASSASSINATION ANNIVERSARY

Serving his last supper


By MELISSA VARGAS Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 21, 2008, 11:04PM

More than four decades later, 77-year-old Rudy Castro still cries.

As he recalls Nov. 22, 1963, his eyes well up and a few tears stream around the wrinkles on his cheeks. In a faint whisper, he remembers how it seemed that the world stopped turning when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

But Castro is touched even deeper than many — the former Rice Hotel banquet captain served the late president his last dinner the night before.

"I haven't really told anyone about the banquet, because no one really asked," he said sitting in the lobby of the refurbished Rice Hotel 45 years to the day after he served the president at a banquet in what was the nearby Sam Houston Coliseum. "It's very painful for me, but I wanted to tell someone. I'm getting up there in age, so it's time."

The staff of The Rice Hotel was overjoyed at the news it had been chosen to host the president. On the night of the banquet, hotel employees were feverishly running about making the final touches, Castro said.

The then-32-year-old used a tape measure to ensure the space between the glasses, plates and silverware were placed perfectly at each setting.

More than 3,200 people attended the dinner, which the then-chancellor of Rice University called "probably the largest seated dinner ever held in Texas." Hundreds who showed up at the Coliseum trying to buy the $5 dinner ticket at the door were turned away.

On the last night of his life, Kennedy dined on Chicken Virginia, rolls, green beans and pumpkin pie. The meal was simple because the chefs didn't have the correct equipment for an elaborate dinner at the Coliseum, Castro said. He and two other banquet captains were in charge of serving Kennedy and the dignitaries and Castro remembers the late president was very polite.

"He looked like a movie star," Castro said.

When Kennedy spoke at the banquet, Castro and the other staff members peered around a velvet curtain to watch him honor U.S. Rep. Albert Thomas, who had been instrumental in bringing the future Johnson Space Center to Houston.

CONTINUED...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6126424.html



Albert Thomas. He's the guy who winked at LBJ on Air Force One the next day.



Thanks for giving a damn, my Friend. For Justice, Progs Rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oeditpus Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. That'll keep the DoJ busy




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin5 Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. LOL! Once again the Onion gets to the truth without even trying.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
126. On that sunny Friday, I was cleaning my rifle on a grassy knoll, and it just went off!
I swear it was an accident. And I'm really, really sorry. There, I said it. You happy now?

Seriously, this anniversary makes me very sad. Every time I have seen the Zapruder film, I hope I slip into an alternate parallel reality in which Kennedy ducks before that third shot comes. How different that world would be! We'd have colonies on Mars. Hardly anyone would know of a nation called Vietnam. The money and lives wasted on the Vietnam War would have been spent on education and the Peace Corps. Martin and Bobby might still be alive. Most of our nation's energy would come from hydrogen fusion power plants, depending for fuel on seawater. And no one from Texas would ever have been President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
145. Freemasons?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oeditpus Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #145
152. Hard to believe, innit?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #145
197. More like their evil alter-ego
The Knights of St. John Rhodes and Malta. JFK's father was a member and they were disappointed to say the least when JFK didn't turn out the way they had planned. He was pronounced a traitor to their cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
21. Many say that the country never recovered from the psychic wound of his murder.
..I was thirteen years old at the time. I would like to know the truth before I die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. Dig up Lee Harvery Oswald...
and give the corpse a lethal injection? Frankly, one would think that after 45 years of investigation, someone, somewhere could come up with verifiable proof that there was a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. The Zapruder film,
Scores of eyewitness testimony, Jackie Kennedy reaching on the trunk for JFK's skull and brains and common sense are enough evidence for me. How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
42. Then you ought to...
bring your evidence to the proper authorities. If you don't, then you are part of the so called on going conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. The proper authorities....
Did reinvestigate it (1979 House commission). They deemed there was most likely a conspiracy. But the Discovery Channel, Posner Bugliosi crowd chooses to gloss over that fact. I wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
70. Uh, because the dictabelt tape that supposedly "proved" a 4th shot
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 08:06 PM by stopbush
was what the 1979 House commission based its conspiracy on, and that was quite wrong. Photographic and video evidence has proven that officer HB McClain's motorcycle was nowhere near the "target zone"it would have had to have been in to record a 4th shot.

Note: the House Commission was prepared to declare Oswald the sole gunman when at the 11th hour, this 4th shot "evidence" was put forward.

Read Bugliosi's book
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. Read it....
And it proves nothing of the sort. Care to explain all the rest of the inconsistencies of the Warren Commission? There are hundreds of them,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #70
265. BTW - Officer HB McClain swore up and down that he was nowhere near the
target area that he would have had to been in to record a 4th shot. He told that to the 1979 House Commission and stuck with his story. The HC chose to say that he was wrong and then used his "position" as "evidence" to support the claim that his dictabelt recorded a 4th shot. But the photographic/video evidence shows that McClain was absolutely correct in saying he was far behind the motorcade and far outside of the target zone.

So, was the HC involved in a conspiracy to promote the 4th bullet theory? After all, their conclusions ran counter to the explicit claims made by the guy who was on the motorcycle that day.

Opinions, CTers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #265
269. The same can be said about the WC...
Ignoring eyewitness testimony. Google Mary Moorman. We can play these games all day. what nullifies the WC is the Zapruder film...point blank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
104. Conspiracy doesn't necessarily have to involve multiple shooters.
Oswald was the only shooter. I'm all for finding anyone else who facilitated it, but am convinced he was the only one who pulled the trigger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. And what exactly convinces you?
The Parkland doctors refute it. Witnesses refute it. Evidence on the trunk refutes it. Common sense refutes it. What convinces you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. The word "refute" means PROVE. No one has PROVEN that Kennedy was shot with more than one gun.
So I'd say at best your doctors, witnesses, and trunk evidence CHALLENGE the evidence.

Bevel. That word says a lot to me. It describes what a bullet does when it hits an immovable object such as a skull. Ever see what a BB does to a window? Look into how the entrance wound in the back of Kennedy's head was "beveled". He was shot from behind. REFUTE that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Back and the the left....
Brains and skull on the trunk.....entrance wound to the rear can not do that.....Refute that.

I would think veteran emergency room doctors would know what an entrance and exit wound are, no? I guess they are kooks like the rest of us. I would guess the scores of witnesses who swore of shots from the knoll are kooks too, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. See my post number 115
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #111
224. Excuse me, but JFK's head moves FORWARD upon impact of the head shot,
then recoils backwards. Watch the Z film again. It's as clear as can be.

"Back and to the left." Are you parroting the fiction of Oliver Stone or Jerry Seinfeld?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #224
225. He does not jerk forward....
The "jerk" you see is him reacting to being shot in the throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #225
238. Who said "jerk?" Not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #109
174. But the doctors thought the wound on the back of his head was an exit wound
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 01:40 AM by dflprincess
because of it's size. And, even in 1963, if there's one thing ER doctors in Dallas were familiar with, it was gunshot wounds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #174
382. But it wasn't the back of his head, it was the top of his head.
Big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #382
387. The doctors said the back of the head
And at least one of them still says the back of the head

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=M ...

McClelland looked into the head wound. Stray hairs at the back of the head covered parts of the hole, as did bits of bone, blood, and more blood clots. He watched as a piece of cerebellum slowly slipped from the back of the hole and dropped onto the cart.

(In the room with his students, Dr. McClelland softly touches the rear-right part of his own head. “Right back here,” he tells them. “About like this.” He puts his hands together to signify the size of the wound, about the size of a golf ball. “Clearer in my mind’s eye than maybe you are sitting in front of me right now.”)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #104
183. Ask a physicist to analyze the trajectory for you.
The movement of objects is a matter of physics. The path of an object must comply with the laws of physics. The magic bullet defies the laws of physics. The trajectory that the Warren Report advocated is quite impossible according to friends of my who have studied physics and the facts regarding the magic bullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #183
230. Magic bullet? There was no magic bullet.
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 12:23 PM by stopbush
The trajectory of the bullet was absolutely straight, through JFK and into Connally. The important FACT is that the governor was seated in a jump seat that was a foot closer to the car's center and lower than the seat that JFK was in. If you put JFK and Connally in their actual positions, there's no where else for the bullet to go but into Connally. The entrance/exit wounds line up perfectly when the victims are put in their actual positions.

Of course, O Stone and the CTs place Connally a foot to the right of JFK from where Connally actually sat. That INCORRECT POSITIONING is the basis of the erroneous "magic bullet" BS.

But let's play devil's advocate and assume that Connally was seated where he wasn't. ie: directly in front of JFK. Suppose we stipulate the bullet that hit JFK didn't also hit Connally. Fine. Let me ask you this - where did the bullet that hit JFK but not Connally end up if not in Connally? Surely, it should have been embedded in the dashboard, or should have blown out the front windshield, or ended up somewhere in the limo IF we are to believe the laws of physics and the trajectory such a bullet would have taken.

It's a point that Bugliosi makes in his book. I've yet to see any of the CT people come up with an answer for this SIMPLE question. Care to try?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #230
231. The Warren Commission disagrees with you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #231
237. Hmm? I missed that drawing in the WCR. Could you provide the WCR Exhibit number so I can look it up?
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #237
239. That picture....
Is a depiction of the theorized path of CE-399.....That theory is directly from the Warren Commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #239
243. And yet you presented it as if it were a drawing from the WC itself.
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 01:02 PM by stopbush
"The WC disagrees with you," writes LOIFV, then posts a non-WC drawing as evidence. Shameful.

That's the kind of mendacity that CTs like yourself use to bolster their fantasies - a "theorized path of CE-399" that appears NOWHERE in the WCR? THAT'S what you're going to hang your hat on as a piece of "evidence" that "supports" the "laws of physics" that seemed so important to you only 10 minutes ago? Right!

BTW - WC Exhibit 872 shows the off-center seating in the limo of which I spoke earlier. Check it out. Maybe it will begin to "convince" you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #243
244. So your position...
Is that Arlen Specter did not propagate that 7 wounds were not caused by CE-399? You are saying that the OFFICIAL version of the wounds from CE-399 is not the one the Arlen Specter brought forward? Now you show me where this is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #244
249. You ask a lot of questions and try to shift the burden of proof to me.
Yet, you support your crazed theories with "theorized" lies. How about that?

And you're the one who just now injected Arlen Spector into the discussion. What has he got to do with seating positions and bullet trajectories? He didn't do the forensics on the shots.

BTW - I noticed you haven't bothered to answer my question about what happened to the "magic bullet" if it didn't enter Gov. Connally. Did it end up in the dashboard of the limo? What's your "theory" on that one?

Further BTW - from your posts, I doubt that you're being truthful when you say you've read both the WCR and Bugliosi's book. Otherwise, you would have anticipated the rejoinders I've made to your CTs.

Final BTW: you can amend the situation by reading the WCR which is available online here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-... /

The Bugliosi book you'll have to buy. Amazon has it for $33.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #249
262. You can doubt all you want...
I have read them. What you think matters little to me. Now to answer your questions. If you knew anything about the WC, you would know that Arlen Specter proffered the nonsense that is the magic bullet. The first shot missed. The third shot was supposedly the kill shot./ So they had a shitload of wounds they needed to account for. That is where they established that CE-399 caused all of Connelly and JFK's non fatal wounds. This is basic stuff here. If you do not know the basics, why would I engage you in trajectories and such?

CE-399 was found in near pristine condition on JFK's gurney at the hospital. Look at that bullet and you tell me whether or not it caused all of those wounds. Like I said, basic stuff.

So let's not attack me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #262
273. I posted the WC photo of that "pristine" bullet in #255 above.
Doesn't look "near pristine" to me.

BTW - you won't answer the question: where did the bullet go when it emerged from JFK if not into Connally? You won't answer because you have no answer.

The "basic stuff" is that IF you align JFK and JC in their ACTUAL POSITIONS in the limo, then the "magic bullet" loses its magic because it could go nowhere else but where it went, ie: into Connally. You seem to ignore the seating positions of the two men, when acknowledging their actual positions is the ONLY way to properly analyze the bullet trajectory. The only way to account for your erroneous magic bullet claims - which you "supported" with a ludicrous drawing NOT based on the WCR - is to LIE about where the two men were seated in the limo.

So, answer me this - do you dispute the seating positions that I have outlined above that put JFK and JC in perfect alignment to be hit by a single bullet? If not, why not?

It doesn't get more "basic" than that, my friend.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #273
278. Basic...
Is the WC's assertion of that bullet, in the condition it was found, causing 7 wounds. The WC did not even think they were perfectly aligned. I, for one, do not believe one bullet, even if they were perfectly aligned caused the wounds. Why? Because of the Parkland doctor (Crenshaw) identified the throat wound as an ENTRANCE wound. Totally nullifying the magic bullet and the lone shooter theory. I tend to believe him.

And that bullet looks damned fine for one going through muscle, skin, and bones. I have seen bullets that have gone through wood look much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #278
312. Still won't answer the question about the alignment of the two victims in the limo.
I'll chalk that up as a victory to facts and a defeat for your type of CT BS.

Your silence speaks volumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #312
314. I did answer it....
Their alignment means shit to me. Wanna know why? Because JFK was shot in the throat FROM THE FRONT. Answer your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #314
318. So JFK and Connally were hit at exactly the same instant by two separate bullets?
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 01:01 AM by stopbush
Right. JFK shot from the front, Connally shot from ??? at the exact same moment.

And, if JFK was shot in the throat from the front, then the exit wound must have been the wound in in his back...which means the shooter would have had to have been shooting from the ground UP to JFK as the wound on JFK's back was higher than the wound on his throat, and, the shooter would have had to have been ACROSS THE STREET from the Grassy Knoll (ie: out in the open), most likely PRONE to get the angle that accounts for a front entry wound and a back exit wound. PLUS, the entry wound in the neck would then be LARGER than the exit wound in the back. Yep, that sounds like a typical scenario - an entry wound that is larger than the exit wound from the same shot.

Or, maybe you have your own magic bullet theory - a bullet shot from the grassy knoll goes past JFK, turns in mid air and enters his throat, then -counter to the laws of physics yet again - travels UP and exits his back.

Or, do you believe there were even more than 4 shots fired?

Question: where did Oswald's second shot go if it didn't hit JFK & Connally?

BTW - how do you account for the lead fragments in Connally's wrist matching CE 399?

Looks to me like evidence and facts are what actually mean shit to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #318
334. This is the last time I am engaging with you....
From here on out we agree to disagree. You are assuming one shooter and 3 shots. I am assuming multiple shooters and 4-6 shots (which numerous witnesses attested too). So there is no way we are going to agree on this. The Parkland doctors (emergency room doctors) stated that the throat wound was an entrance wound. They were the first responders. Why would anyone discount their initial prognosis? They had absolutely zero reason to lie. Point blank, if they are correct (and I believe they were) an entrance wound to the throat equals more than one shooter which equals more than three shots which equals conspiracy.

Now the initial report of the shot to JFK's back was way too low for the throat to be an exit wound (according to initial reports). So assuming your assumption that CE 399 was the back wound, it had to ricochet out of his throat, no? Meaning it would have to had hit bone, no? If so, CE 399 would have had a lot more damage. A LOT MORE.

Was Oswald a shooter? Maybe. Taking into account his previous poor marksmanship ability, I assume the first shot (which missed) was him. Hell, maybe CE 399 was his (doubt it, but feasible). So there is my theory. I will not engage you anymore. I think your theory is shit and you think mine is. So leave it as that.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #334
338. You wish to end the dialogue, fine, but do yourself a favor and
read a bit of the evidence to counter the myths you hold so dear.

As a parting shot, you inject a NEW myth into the discussion, a myth used by O Stone in his fictional account of that day: the myth that Oswald was a poor shot. In fact, the USMC RECORDS show that Oswald attained the ranking of MARKSMAN, scoring 49 out of 50 and 48 out of 50 in shots to a target resembling the shoulder and head area of a human being at 200 yards. IIRC, the kill shot to JFK's limo was 88 yards, well within Oswald's marksman range.

As far as discounting the opinions of the Parkland doctors, nobody has any reason to believe that they would lie, but nobody has ever said that they were experts in examining gunshots wounds, either. People do make mistakes, especially in the heat of the moment. The "initial report" of where the bullet entered JFK's back was disproved by the autopsy photos. Who ya gonna believe, the photos or the doctors opinions, opinions offered in a stressful situation? (Go ahead, tell me the autopsy photos were doctored).

As far as CE 399 ricocheting out of JFK's throat - why do you say it would "have to hit bone?" Did you just make that up?

As far as the damage to CE 399 - well, at least you're now admitting that it wasn't near pristine. That's progress. The point is that there WAS damage to the bullet, and that lead FROM CE 399 was lodged in Connally's wrist. It is a FACT that the ballistics test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle was an exact match to CE 399. Are you going to posit that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's gun BEFORE the assassination so it could be planted on that Parkland stretcher by...who? Brian Doyle Murray?

The truth is - and I'd hope we're all interested in the truth - is that I "have a theory" that is grounded in the evidence, while you have a "theory" that is in direct contradiction to the evidence. My theory requires only the evidence and a LOGICAL, STANDARD reading of the evidence to reach a conclusion.

Your theory, on the other hand, requires a Deus ex machina that would make a religionist blush while serving as a major plot device for the cheapest of dime store novels.

Enjoy your fantasies...but they are just that, fantasies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #338
339. And you ignore your fantasies as well...
Ignorance is Bliss.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #339
343. No, I'm ignoring YOUR fantasies.
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 01:39 PM by stopbush
I don't have any fantasies about the JFK assassination. I believe the evidence. If new evidence is presented that contradicts the existing evidence, I'd certainly consider it. I've yet to see a scrap of EVIDENCE presented in all the CT musings in this thread, including yours. OPINIONS and FANTASIES are not evidence. And, BTW, being even more far-fetched doesn't add a scintilla of truth to a CT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #343
351. This is the perfect place for one of my faves: A lifetime JFK assassination "researcher"...
and big time conspiracy theorist dies and goes to heaven.

He's met at the pearly gates by Saint Peter, who tells him "all of our newcomers get one audience with the Almighty before you're fitted with your halo, and during that audience you get to ask Him one question."

"To anything?" the CT'er asks.

"Yes," Saint Peter replies, "you can ask Him anything, about any topic. He has all the answers."

So they get before the Almighty, and God says "WELCOME TO HEAVEN - ASK AND I SHALL ANSWER."

The CT'er says "God, as you know, all my life I've studied the assassination of President Kennedy, and even though I know there was a massive conspiracy, I never could pin down who was behind it. So I ask you: who really killed JFK?"

God says "LEE HARVEY OSWALD, ACTING ALONE, COMMITTED THAT FOUL DEED."

As they're walking off to fit the CT'er with his halo, he leans over to Saint Peter and says "wow! The conspiracy is a whole lot bigger than I thought."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #338
344. Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza
The Education Forum _ JFK Assassination Debate _ Craig Roberts: Kill Zone
Posted by: John Simkin May 9 2006, 02:57 PM

Craig Roberts was a U.S. Marine sniper. In 1994 he wrote a book, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza. Here are two passages which I believe reading in some detail. I would be especially interested in hearing the views of other members of the Forum on this subject.

(1) Unlike Oswald, who failed to qualify on the rifle range in Boot Camp, and who barely qualified "Marksman"-the lowest of three grades-on a later try, I was a trained and combat-experienced Marine sniper. I had spent a year in Vietnam, during which time I had numerous occasions to line up living, breathing human beings in the crosshairs of my precision Unertl scope and squeeze the trigger of my bolt-action Model 70 Winchester and send a .30 caliber match-grade round zipping down range.

Here I was, a professional police officer and writer, looking down at the most famous ambush site in history through the eyes of a sniper. A strange feeling came over me. A feeling of calm, dampening my anger. The trained investigator inside me surfaced and took over my emotions. I began to scrutinize what my senses were absorbing.

First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper. In the time allotted, and in the distance along the street in which the rounds had impacted the target from first report to final shot, it would take a minimum of two people shooting. There was little hope that I alone, even if armed with the precision equipment I had used in Vietnam, would be able duplicate the feat described by the Warren Commission. So if I couldn't, I reasoned, Oswald couldn't...

Posted by: Stephen Turner May 9 2006, 04:03 PM

Consider also Carlos Hathcock, America's most deadly military sniper(93 confirmed kills in Vietnam). he attempted to stage, and replicate Oswald's performance in a mock up at, I think, Quantico. Despite repeated attempts this ace shooter could not come close to repeating Oswald's performance. When asked why he now beleived Oswald had not done the shooting at Dealy Plaza he replied, "Because I couldn't do it"...

Amazon: Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza

40 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Simply Outstanding!, February 25, 2002
By Michael Tozer (Bloomingdale, IL United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Like the author, I am former military man who sensed something very ominous on my first visit to Dealey Plaza in Dallas. It felt to me like an ambush site. Indeed, this is exactly what is was, as vividly depicted in Craig Roberts' excellent book.

If you want to understand what really happened on this blackest day of American history, you simply must read this book. The chances are it will go quickly for you. I ordered the book through Amazon and found it on my door step on a Saturday evening. The following morning at 1:30am, I turned the final page of the narrative with the assurance that I finally understood what really happened on November 22, 1963 and, most importantly, why.

In particular, I was intrigued that the author was led to investigate the facts through his warrior instincts and that his investigation led far beyond the scope of what he originally thought to be an unsolved murder. The trail of this investigation leads beyond the Mafia, the CIA, the FBI, the US military, and all of the usual suspects right up to the small group of extraordinarily powerful men who truly control this world.

To Craig Roberts, Bravo Zulu! The good news is that, in the end, despite the sinister plotting of the terrible forces uncovered in this outstanding work, the good good guys will win and win huge!


Craig Roberts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #344
345. And yet, other marksmen have easily and repeatedly duplicated Osawld's
shots. IIRC, the Discovery Channel special on the subject contained just such a demonstration.

I haven't read Craig Roberts book. Were his tests witnessed by a neutral third party? Did he actually perform a test and attempt to actually duplicate Oswald's shots, or did he just view the scene and IMAGINE what he MIGHT not have been able to duplicate? Just asking, because - as I said - others have taken the time to run tests and have easily duplicated Oswald's shots.

Oops - time for the CTs to chime in that the DC show was fixed/edited, all the while holding to the belief that the unsubstantiated, unwitnessed, untested claims made in a book are the god's truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #344
406. I LOVE this whopper of a LIE from Roberts:
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 01:58 PM by stopbush
"Unlike Oswald, who failed to qualify on the rifle range in Boot Camp, and who barely qualified "Marksman"-the lowest of three grades-on a later try, I was a trained and combat-experienced Marine sniper."

So, Oswald failed on the rifle range IN BOOT CAMP. Gee, I'll bet he failed to make up his bed to the standard where a quarter could be bounced off it as well IN BOOT CAMP.

See, Mr Roberts, what comes during and AFTER Boot Camp is what's called MILITARY TRAINING. That TRAINING includes what is called target PRACTICE. Oswald spent 3.5 YEARS in the USMC. He attained the ranking of SHARPSHOOTER on his first test, MARKSMAN on a later test.

Ultimately, Roberts is LYING about Oswald's shooting skills. The ratings for shooters in the USMC was "marksman - sharpshooter - expert." In December, 1956, Oswald was tested and scored 212, which was 2 points over the minimum needed to qualify as a SHARPSHOOTER. A sharpshooter is a step ABOVE a Marksman. In 1959, Oswald was retested and scored lower, qualifying only as a marksman. The disparity of his scores was evaluated by a Lt Col AG Folsom, Jr, and a Major Anderson, who concluded:

"I would say that compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better or equal to - better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered a good to excellent shot."

Yet, to make his case that Oswald was a poor shot, Roberts OMITS any mention of Oswald qualifying as a sharpshooter in 1956 and mentions only his "later score" where he scored worse. Funny that, as Oswald's higher score was attained close to his Boot Camp days while his lower score came near the end of his time in the USMC.

Just another CT nut selectively cherry picking information to make his wacky point seem true.

It's called LYING.

On edit: after leaving the USMC, Oswald became an avid hunter. His weapon of choice was a bolt-action rifle. He even joined a hunting club during his time in Russia. His wife, Marina, testified that she saw Oswald leave the house with the stated goal of doing target practice with the rifle used in the assassination. She also reports watching him as he sat on their porch, siting the rifle and operating the bolt. The cartridge cases found in the TBD exhibited evidence that they "had been previously loaded and ejected from the assassination rifle, which would indicate that Oswald practiced operating the bolt" (Source: WCR - pgs 192-93)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
61. Do you know how many people have died trying? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #61
99. Officer shot in back yard mistaken for deer.............
I believe he was the motorcycle cop who heard shots fired from the grassy knoll. One of many "accidents" involving witnesses. Somewhere on the order of 60 or 70 I believe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #42
182. The video linked to above that shows the puzzled gestures and
expression of the Secret Service agent as he was called off Kennedy's car is enough evidence for me. The agent knew what the protocol was. He knew where he was supposed to be, and that his being called off was improper and unexpected. He was called off in an apparent violation of the plan if not the rules because someone wanted Kennedy to be vulnerable, wanted Kennedy to take the bullet and not the Secret Service agents. Watch that video carefully. Watch it several times if you must. I don't see how you can come to any conclusion but that there was a coordinated plan and that it was placed in action.

In addition, the magic bullet is strong evidence. That is a favorite topic of a very brilliant physicist who can talk very authoritatively on the impossibility of the magic bullet theory. There simply is no explanation that satisfies the laws of physics for the trajectory of that bullet. Arlen Spector should speak to some physicists about it. It's time he comes clean about how in the world he got talked into believing the nonsense of the magic bullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
137. that would be one interpenetration. another would be...
jackie frantically trying to get the fuck out out of dodge, of her trying to get the fuck out of that limo because her husband just got the head shot! crawling over the trunk to get away. that's what jackie was doing.


jackie crawling across the trunk to flee is so much more probable than "jackie collecting skull and brain fragments."

sorry.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. Here is the quote
Jackie Kennedy crawls onto the trunk of the limo. In his Warren Commission testimony Agent Hill said he believed that she was reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car. And indeed, a piece of the President's skull was later found on the pavement. She cries, "I have a piece of his brain in my hand." Agent Hill manages to get onto the trunk and shove her back into the car, placing his body over hers and the Presidents. Hill reported that Mrs. Kennedy said, "My God, they have shot his head off."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #141
146. bullshit. she wasn't reaching for anything. she was trying to get her ass out of that limo...
jackie was trying to live. escape. like you would do. like i would do.

that is no knock on jackie. i would have done the same, only faster.

your jackie "lore" is bullshit...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #146
150. That is not my lore.
That is Secret Service Agent Clint Hill's testimony. The truth hurts....I know....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #150
155. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #25
156. Liberal OIF Vet, I've watched that film scores of times and every single time I came away with
the distinct impression that Jackie Kennedy was trying her damndest to GET OUT of the line of fire. I've heard people say she was trying to help the SS guy get into the car and now you're saying she was reaching on the trunk for JFK's skull and brains. Now that is THE most far-fetched version yet.

The President and the Governor of Texas have just been shot methodically and within seconds of each other. Jackie did what many people would have done. She tried to save herself. No dishonor in that, of course. But we Americans can't have our First Ladies doing something as commonplace as being scared shitless they're going to be the next one shot. Instead, she has to become the dutiful wife helping the SS agent--who actually pushed her back into the limo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #156
158. All I can say is....
Read the testimony of Agent Hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #158
309. At this point I have to discount the testimony of any of the agents involved. Certainly
they would not have said anything disparaging against the First Lady after that awful incident. And especially, given their part in what happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #156
171. Not far fetched at all
There an interview shown on one of the TV programs with one of the Parkland MDs who worked on JFK. He said that Jackie was standing next to him in the Trauma Room with her hands cupped together one atop another. She nudged him with her elbow and proceeded to give him what she had in her hands. It was a double handful of JFK brain matter. So yes it's perfectly plausible in her state of mind she was trying get all the parts and "put it back together" to "make him all better."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #171
310. That may well be the case. As you say, in her state of mind that would not be implausible.
Nonetheless, I don't think that was why she was on the trunk of the limo. Her retrieving his brains could have happened later.

But, I will go back and watch the film one (or, if necessary, two) more time to see if my opinion changes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. It changed the course of my life. Who's with JFK in that picture?
First time I've seen it. I was going to mention JFK at work today, but for reasons (in your thread) I decided not to. (I work with one other person).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
45. Pierre Salinger. They're aboard the U.S.S. Joseph P. Kennedy...
...watching the America's Cup races.

Here's an image:



It was taken by the official White House photographer, Cecil Stoughton, who passed away earlier this month.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/06/JFK_White_House_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. That's priceless.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 08:01 PM by bluesmail
edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #46
89. JFK's remarks
President Kennedy certainly loved life.

Here's what he said during the sailboat races -- just before the Cuban Missile Crisis...



America's Cup Remarks

Newport, Rhode Island
September 14, 1962

Ambassador, Lady Beale, Ambassador and Mrs. Berckmeyer, Ambassador and Lady Ormsby Gore, the Ambassador from Portugal, our distinguished Ministers from Australia, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I know that all of us take the greatest pleasure in being here, first of all because whether we are Australian or American, we are all joined by a common interest, a common devotion and love for the sea, And I am particularly glad to be here because this Cup is being challenged by our friends from Australia, this extraordinary group of men and women numbering some 10 million, who have demonstrated on many occasions, on many fields, in many countries, that they are the most extraordinary athletic group in the world today, and that this extraordinary demonstration of physical vigor and skill has come not by the dictates of the state, because the Australians are among the freest citizens in the world, but because of their choice.

Therefore, Ambassador, you are most welcome here.

This Cup has been challenged in the past by our friends from Great Britain. We are glad to see Australia assuming the responsibilities of empire in coming here, and we are particularly glad to welcome you in the year 1962. This is a trophy which the United States has held for over a century, unlike the Davis Cup. And we do have a feeling, Ambassador, we do have an old American motto of "One cup at a time."

There is no question that this kind of national competition produces the greatest good will among nations. The most recent indication of that, of course, were the games held at Indonesia which produced a wonderful feeling of spirit in all of Asia, and I am confident that these games will produce the same kind of good will between Australia and the United States.

I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came.

Therefore, it is quite natural that the United States and Australia, separated by an ocean, but particularly those of us who regard the ocean as a friend, bound by an ocean, should be meeting today in Newport to begin this great sea competition. This is an old relationship between the United States and Australia, and particularly between Rhode Island and Australia.

In the 1790's, Ambassador, American ships, mostly from Rhode Island, began to call regularly at New South Wales. Their cargoes, I regret to say, consisted mainly of gin and rum, and the effect was to set back the athletic development, until the recent great temperance movement in Australia, for many years.

In 1801, Governor Philip Gidley King, of Australia, complained to London, "Such has been the certainty in America of any quantity of spirits being purchased here that a ship cleared out of Rhode Island for this port with a very large investment of spirits, which I positively forbade being landed, in consequence of which she left this port with upward of 13,000 gallons of spirit brought to Australia for sale." And he told the American Minister Rufus King to warn the Rhode Island merchants not to try to market their rum in Australia. I need hardly say that the Rhode Island merchants continued to do their compassionate best to quench this thirst which was felt so strongly in Australia.

However, Australia became committed to physical fitness and it has been disastrous for the rest of us. We have the highest regard for Australia, Ambassador. As you said, we regard them as very satisfactory friends in peace, and the best of friends in war. And I know there are a good many Americans of my generation who have the greatest possible reason to be grateful to the Australians who wrote a most distinguished record all the way from the desert of North Africa, and most particularly in the islands of the South Pacific, where their particular courage and gallantry I think met the strongest response in all of us in this country.

But I really don't look to the past. I look to the present. The United States and Australia are most intimately bound together today, and I think that -- and I speak as one who has had some experience in friendship and some experience in those who are not our friends -- we value very much the fact that on the other side of the Pacific the Australians inhabit a very key and crucial area, and that the United States is most intimately associated with them. So beyond this race, beyond the result, rests this happy relationship between two great people.

I want to toast tonight the crew, the sailors, those who made it possible for the GRETEL to come here, those who have, for a hundred years, defended this Cup from the New York Yacht Club, to all of them. As the Ambassador said so well, they race against each other, but they also race with each other against the wind-and the sea.

To the crew of the GRETEL and the crew of the WEATHERLY.

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

NOTE: Remarks of the President on the Occasion of the Dinner Given by
His Excellency the Hon. Sir Howard Beale, K.B.E., Q.C. Ambassador of Australia to the United States.

The President spoke at The Breakers, the former Cornelius Vanderbilt estate which was loaned for the occasion by the Newport Preservation Society. His opening words referred to Sir Howard Beale, Ambassador from Australia, and Lady Beale; Fernando Berckemeyer, Ambassador from Peru, and Mrs. Berckemeyer; Sir David Ormsby-Gore, Ambassador from Great Britain, and Lady Ormsby-Gore; Pedro Theotonio Pereira, Ambassador from Portugal; Sir Garfield Barwick, Australian Minister for External Affairs; and Harold E. Holt, Treasurer of Australia.


SOURCE: http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/sea.html



I remember 45 years ago. Perhapse once enough people of the younger generations learn about what life was like then, we can make the future even better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. Thats not the USS Joseph P. Kennedy
No 2250 tin can looked like that. That is the Oval Office of the White House..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #55
71. The picture from the OP.


http://www.ussjpkennedyjr.org/photojpk8.html

The Halloween picture is in the Oval Office.
The witch, I believe, is Caroline.
The other child, I assume, was his son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
30. I'd be pleased if
more of the classified information was released.

If I were to identify one key point of information on the case, it would be that two of JFK's closest friends were in a car behind the President. Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell said that they saw and heard shots coming from the grassy knoll.

Within hours of the killing, both men had told RFK what they saw and heard. However, their story did not become known publicly for years.

When interviewed by the FBI afterward, they were pressured to lie. O'Donnell, of course, testified to the Warren Commision, and told the lies that he had been instructed to tell. Powers did not testify to the Warren Commission.

After RFK was killed, Powers, O'Donnell, Tip O'Neill had lunch. The two told O'Neill about what they knew about Dallas. Before this, O'Neill had believed the Warren Commission; what he heard that day changed his mind.

Any investigation that depends, even in part, upon those entrusted to investigate and enforce the laws, is contaminated when they pressure witnesses to knowingly lie. A good investigator may believe that a witness is confused, or had an error in perception. But they deal with that. And they do not pressure the witness -- or witnesses -- to knowingly lie.

Why would they have pressured Powers and O'Donnell? Perhaps it was because their actual knowledge of the events could convince even a man like Tip O'Neill.

Thank you for this OP and thread.

Nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
60. Could you please cite a source for the Powers, O'Donnell, O'Neill meeting?
That's fascinating and something I'd never heard.

Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Sure.
"Man of the House," by Tip O'Neill; St. Martin's Press, NY; 1987; page 211.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #62
83. Great! Thank you. Here's the excerpt
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 08:29 PM by RufusTFirefly

...
I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
"That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.
"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."
...
Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.
...


The snipping wasn't deceptive. I simply truncated the excerpt so as not to violate any copyright. The whole excerpt is reprinted here.

By the way, this excerpt brings up a crucial point about the cover-up that is frequently overlooked. Quite a few people kept quiet for reasons they felt were noble. Some claimed to be sparing the Kennedy family for further pain. Remember, also, that this was the midst of the Cold War. There was a deliberate effort to implicate either Cuba or the Soviets in the plot. Assuming you bought this lie, consider its ramifications. Some may have mistakenly felt that accepting the idea of a lone nut instead of a calculated plot by an enemy country would literally save the world from nuclear annihilation. In addition, witnesses who were members of the military felt they were "following orders" by keeping silent.

Of course, there were almost certainly others who feared that telling the truth would endanger either their reputations or their lives. Others, like Abraham Bolden and Ralph Yates, were imprisoned or institutionalized when they tried to be whistle blowers.

The point is that skeptics of a JFK conspiracy frequently zero in on the implausibility of so many people keeping silent. But when you combine all the possible motivations for silence, it's entirely plausible.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. There are
several other sources, as well.

Lamar Waldron (with Thom Hartmann); The Ultimate Sacrifice; Carroll & Graf, NY; 2005.

David Talbot; Brothers; Free Press, NY; 2007.

Vincent Bugliosi; Reclaiming History; Norton, NY; (696n-97n).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #88
184. Vincent Bugliosi rejects the conspiracy theory about the assassination of Kennedy.
I have not read his book and don't particularly want to because I seriously doubt that explains the YouTube video scene of the calling off the of the Secret Service officers or that he has talked with a physicist about the fantasy trajectory of the single magic bullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #184
194. Right.
Mr. Bugliosi is convinced it was Oswald, and Oswald alone. Although I disagree with him, I found the book to be interesting. The footnotes are on a disc (because they alone would make a large book), and that is unhandy. However, for those interested in reading the book, it is important to study the footnotes. For example, the one that I had noted in the previous post.

It is also worth noting that Mr. Bugliosi is not always opposed to the idea of "conspiracies." And I am not only making reference to "the family" or the Bush administration. Vincent Bugliosi participated in a civil case in which he sought to introduce evidence to prove that there was a criminal conspiracy that resulted in the death of Robert Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
149. National security.
Going from what I believe…

The plotters were not just
    Texas oil men
    The Ultra Right
    The Mafia
    Racist Religionist Confederates
    NAZIs
    Rogue CIA
    Communist Martyrs
    The Joint Chiefs

Certainly, there are indications some or all could’ve been involved.

How they worked together is beyond what we know.

The people who carried it out were the most powerful people in the country – even more powerful than the President.

It had to have been the masters of the national security community – the real masters of the universe.

They, I imagine, had become frustrated at the Bay of Pigs, enraged during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and traitors at NSAM 263.

It helps explain how we got to
    Charlie Wilson’s War
    The Texas Angle
    Presidential Power
    Ultra Right Wing Nutjobs Inc.
    War Inc

The corruptions of Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo and Jack Abramoff aren’t a series of one-offs. They are systemic.

Calling these turds out today – their offspring in power, if not in flesh, helps us in what we have to do.

The times gave us then the right man.
Had Nixon been in office, and the Bay of Pigs would have led to a U.S. invasion.
Perhaps the Soviets would have moved into Berlin.
And, going by what we know now about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs would counsel war and the Cabinet would’ve been even more right wing than Kennedy’s.
JFK kept the peace and the world did not know nuclear war.

Wanted to thank you and your father for telling you about the idea of JFK as an interruption in the status quo, rather than the end of an era. Must bring that era back.


Our nation, planet and humanity really need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucognizant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
201. And would Nora O;'Donnell be.........
relatedtp Kenny O'D? SHe's a journalist on MSNBC>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
31. k&r'd!
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 06:30 PM by wildbilln864
I do support your stated goal Octafish but I don't see it happening. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
33. He was murdered by Oswald alone.
There may be some conspiracy as to who orchestrated Oswald, and the Jack Ruby deal is shady, but let's not be ignorant. A recent forensic study conducted by the Discover Channel proved that the only place the shots could come from was the Depository.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Yeah, the Discovery Channel....
Taking a preconceived notion of Oswald shooting from the depository and making evidence match that theory. Nice investigative work. The Laws of Physics did not take a vacation in Dallas 45 years ago. There is a little issue of the cop riding the motorcycle behind JFK being sprayed with blood and Jackie O being seen reaching on the trunk for JFK's brains and skull. She was even quoted on that too.

But I bet the Discovery Channel can explain the lack of physics in regard to the assassination too, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
85. Obviously, you have not seen the documentary
It does not have any preconceived notions. It was science based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Oh...now you are talking!
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 08:36 PM by Liberal OIF Vet
Let's talk science. Let's talk physics. Let's talk about the physics of a shot striking one in the head from the rear and send that head back in the direction of that shot. Lets talk about the brains and skull fragments that were on the trunk that Jackie was reaching for. Let's talk about the blood spatter that was on the cop on the motorcycle riding BEHIND the motorcade. Let's talk about the absence of blood spatter on the driver and windshield.

You sure you want to talk about science? I don't need the discovery channel to tell me about physics, ballistics and my vision seeing something totally opposite of the BS they are spouting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #85
101. It's not "science" if it is using Warren Commission as a control n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Thank you....
My point exactly. Using the Warren Commission as a basis of your "experiment" is not independent nor scientific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
115. "trunk... brains and skull" Explain the rearward ejecta in this high speed photograph.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 10:32 PM by cherokeeprogressive
It's a picture of a bullet piercing a pear. Notice the ejecta moving AGAINST the direction of the bullet. How would you explain this?

Let me start by saying that I'm not the sharpest bulb in the shed, nor am I the brightest knife on the board. I'm going on what I believe I learned in the short time I attended public schools. I can assure you; at no time did I attend a class while I was there that would prepare me for the kind of physics needed to determine a bullet's path, or anything of the sort.

The picture below shows a bullet passing through a pear, from right to left. Notice the bullet exiting the pear on the left. Notice the ejecta moving in the opposite direction of the path of the bullet at the point of impact. How to explain that? I'll try. Let me reiterate: this is my uneducated guess about President Kennedy's wounds, and why there was skull and brain on the trunk after was hit by the last shot. I say last because I believe the shot that went through his throat would probaby have been fatal by the time he got to Parkland, had he been missed by the rest. But I digress.

When the bullet contacts the pear, it must first pass through that part which protects the meat inside, the skin. Let's stipulate that the bullet penetrates the skin of the pear, and leaves a hole no larger than its diameter. A bullet traveling at high speed doesn't just bring with it kinetic energy. It also brings with it anything it can drag along due to the vacuum created behind it. NASCAR fans know this to be "drafting". The bullet brings air. Lots of it, when you think about how narrow the path of the bullet is, like blowing through a straw. So the bullet hits the pear, and inside the skin the pressure increases at a very fast rate, so much so that finally the skin can no longer contain it. Where is the place that pressure is released? Would it be at the point of least resistance? Such as at the hole created when the projectile entered this closed space? My guess is probably, yeah, that's where it gets out, hence the ejecta at the point of entry, moving in the opposite direction of the projectile.

Now you either agree with my hypothesis in the preceding paragraph or not. But if you do, that explains the presence of skull and brain matter on the trunk of the limosine. If not, then explain why the pear ejects matter in the direction of the bullet's travel, and why a skull would not.

Updated to include forgotten link!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. Couple of things...
1. You can't compare a pear to a human skull. Different pressures and a skull is a lot harder and denser than the skin of a pear.

2. The round fired in your picture is a lot slower than one fired from a high powered rifle.

3. Notice where the vast majority of the fruit is ejected from the front. Taking this into account, why isn't anyone in front of Kennedy absolutely splattered with skull, brains and such? Why is the officer riding behind the limo on the motorcycle who testified that he was splattered with blood and gore?

4. There is no air being brought by a bullet. It cuts through the air faster than the speed of sound. That is why you hear a crack. What the air is doing to the bullet is dragging it and affecting it's trajectory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #119
125. It's impossible to compare a pear to a human skull.
By your first point, what I deduce is that since a human skull is MUCH harder, and MUCH denser than that of a pear, the pressure built up inside the closed space is more likely to make an exit out the rear, the weakest point as in the picture of the pear.

Two, I've seen the same kinds of pics with an apple and a .223.

Three, you made your own point... The bullet didn't exit President Kennedy's skull as a whole, very little of it is unaccounted for. Look at the X-rays. It disintegrated for the most part and not enough of it was left over to do ballistic comparisons on.

Four, "what the air is doing to the bullet" is not looking at the big picture. The wind and the bullet affect each other equally. Yes, the bullet is affected by the air in terms of where it's headed, but it's going to have the same impact when it gets there. A .50 caliber bullet doesn't have to contact your body in order to suck the meat off its bones. Now tell me why you've felt the wind from a car traveling past you at 35 miles an hour, and why you wouldn't feel the disturbance of the surrounding air if a projectile travels by you at 2000fps. Think of what a projectile traveling 2000fps brings with it when it hits you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. I have also seen the effects of bullets
I have seen a watermelon and a full milk carton fired with 5.56mm round. In both cases, the entrance wound was small and the exit wound was immense. Very little blowback was witnessed. The energy is being directed in the direction of the traveling round is headed, not where it came from. Which explains the blood and gore BEHIND the limo, not in front. The blowback is minimal, just like your picture has shown.

And I agree with your last sentence. The energy a bullet going 2000pfs hits like a ton of bricks. Which is why JFK's head and body did what it did during the kill shot. He was hit in the right front, which took his body back and to the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #131
134. Now you're using as your examples things which do not approach the thinkness and hardness (graphic)
of the human skull, after disputing my other post. The autopsy photos of President Kennedy show his forehead intact. The bullet slowed down and some of it stopped after entering the rear of his skull. Show me an entry wound on the front of his head?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark D. Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #134
268. JUST LOOK
Your own 'evidence' he was shot from behind works against you. Look at the picture closely. It's not hard to see. Above his right eye, see that hole, with a triangular lower area? That is where the bullet went in, the force blew the part above his ear off and exiting fragments of the bullet blew tha areas atop his head back as the picture illustrates. Anyone who sees the video of the shooting available in multiple places on YouTube will see him leaning forward after the non-fatal Oswald bullet hits his neck. Then see him slam back into his seat, propelled by being hit in the FRONT by a bullet that could not possibly be fired from behind. A 6'1" 200 lb man does not slam backwards like that for being shot from behind. It doesn't take physics to understand if you shoot anything it flies BACK AWAY from the shooter. Not forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #268
270. Logic defies some of these people...
It is simple physics and ballistics.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #131
148. From the Dicovery Channel website:
"In the show, Yardley looked through the scope of a high-powered rifle from four different possible angles focused on a duplicate Presidential limousine. The limo was in the exact spot where Kennedy was fired on and filled with actors the same size as the passengers that day.

From vantage points at the south end of the overpass, the north end of the overpass and on the grassy knoll, Yardley determined whether a shot could have come from a second gunman at any of these spots.

After careful analysis of possible shot locations, the forensics team structured on a California firing range the exact distances, angles, and even wind speed in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. High-speed cameras rolled as Yardley took his best shot at the head replicas, using a Mannlicher Carcano rifle - the same type supposedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald.

The results of these precision ballistics tests provide some clear answers to the events in Dealey Plaza. Comparing the splatter patterns from these test angles, with the historical evidence gleaned from eyewitness testimony and Secret Service reports, as well as an exact digitized overlay of the Zapruder film, the forensic team draws the definitive conclusion that the fatal shot could have only come from the sixth floor window of the Book Depository and not anywhere else, just as the Warren Commission determined in 1964."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #34
173. I Saw That Documentary... it was bullshit
Kennedy was shot in the front of his head, not in from the back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Uhhh, was Discovery taken over by Clear Channel? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
49. And I do try sooo hard not to be ignorant. Have faith my children the Discovery Channel has spoken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. I refuse...
To let the Discovery Channel, Posner and Bugliosi crowd piss down my back and tell me it is raining. The 1979 House Subcommittee on Assassinations stated Oswald was not alone....so why are the discovery Channel enablers ignoring that fact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
66. Was that a rhetorical question? Who knows who is involved in the cover up. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal OIF Vet Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. It is rhetorical....
Just me postulating as to motive....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #54
365. Could be because as early as 1980 the FBI and other
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 05:13 PM by stopbush
experts rejected the specious evidence of the 4th shot as presented by scientists to the HSCA?

The correctness of that rejection has subsequently been proven to have been accurate through the syncing of video tapes shot from various vantage points that show that Officer McClain's motorcycle was at least 80 yards from the position it would have had to have been in to record a 4th shot on the dictabelt.

As the HSCA based their claims of conspiracy on their erroneous and last-minute embrace of the theoretical dictabelt non-evidence, that sorta blows away THEIR reason for saying Oswald wasn't the lone shooter.

G. Robert Blakey - Chief Counsel and Staff Director to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations - embraced the CT of a second gunman based upon this faulty theory and now-refuted "evidence." On the History Channel Special "Beyond Conspiracy," he stated that were it proved that McClain was not in the target zone at the intersection of Elm & Houston to record the 4th shot on the dictabelt, that the theory would fall apart. It has now fallen apart. Has he refuted the theory? Not on that special, and not anywhere else from what I can see.

In a similar vein, the 3 scientists who first presented the dictabelt "evidence" (claiming to better than 95% that there was a second gunman involved) refused to be interviewed for THC-BC special. Why? Any CTers wish to offer an opinion on that one?

Fantasies die hard, don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #365
383. Just thought that I'd mention that the "others" who rejected the 4th bullet
dictabelt "evidence" included the National Academy of Sciences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #49
117. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #33
185. Did that forensic study deal with the single magic bullet theory
which physicists have told me could not be true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
36. Cui bono? Who benefited??
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 07:35 PM by ailsagirl
LBJ and his cronies, that's who.

If you do much digging on LBJ, you will find a veritable mother lode of information. But it's a creepy road to walk...

Henry Marshall worked for the Dept. of Agriculture in 1960. He was assigned to investigate Billy Sol Estes and found a bunch of highly incriminating evidence about underhanded dealings having to do with cotton allotments. Sol Estes was a close crony of LBJ's. Who killed Henry Marshall? It wasn't a suicide.

On 3rd June, 1961, Marshall was found dead on his farm by the side of his Chevy Fleetside pickup truck. His rifle lay beside him. He had been shot five times with his own rifle. Soon after County Sheriff Howard Stegall arrived, he decreed that Marshall had committed suicide. No pictures were taken of the crime scene, no blood samples were taken of the stains on the truck (the truck was washed and waxed the following day), no check for fingerprints were made on the rifle or pickup.

=snip=

On 1st June, 1962, the Dallas Morning News reported that President John F. Kennedy had "taken a personal interest in the mysterious death of Henry Marshall." As a result, the story said, Robert Kennedy "has ordered the FBI to step up its investigation of the case."



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


MORE

In 2003 the History Channel broadcast The Guilty Men. The film looked at the possibility that Lyndon B. Johnson, Malcolm Wallace and Edward A. Clark were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The programme used evidence from the book by Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. It also used other sources such as the testimony of Madeleine Brown and Billie Sol Estes and the research of Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Rick Russo, Glen Sample, and Gregory Burnham.

The family of Lyndon B. Johnson immediately complained about the programme. Gerald Ford also added his concerns and the History Channel took the decision not to repeat the original broadcast.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top