Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

45 Years On, We Must Bring JFKs Killers to Justice (Thread 2)

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 Mon Nov-24-08 03:46 PM
Original message
Dear Moderators:

If it's OK with you, can you please shut down and lock the first thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A fellow DUer suggested this may make it easier to discuss the subject.

Either way, thank you!

-- Octafish



From the OP:

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, youd 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.

Heres 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 Kennedys passing: Its 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, Well 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
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, J. Edgar Hoover wanted us to believe that he looked good in red chiffon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Anthony Summers found eyewitnesses who said Hoover was conflicted that way.
Summers is the author of Official and Confidential: The Secret Files of J. Edgar Hoover.

For more on Hoover, attorney Mark North chronicled his connections to the assassination of President Kennedy:

Act of Treason: The Role of J. Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy

I heartily recommend both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, but it's been 143 years since Lincoln's real killer escaped justice.


Priorities, people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. There's no statute of limitations on murder.
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 05:34 PM by Octafish
Some of those involved with Dallas may still be alive.

Not to smear their reputations, but I'd like a federal Grand Jury ask Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch and George Herbert Walker Bush more than a few questions.

http://milfuegos.blogspot.com/2006/04/jfk-assassination...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Excellent post...
...

What is the basis for Dankbaar's assertion that the CIA and and anti-Castro elements were behind the assassination?

Dankbaar: This becomes very clear for everyone who studies the known evidence thoroughly. Both the CIA, or maybe I should say the hawks in the CIA, and the anti Castro cubans, who were trained by the CIA, had the means and the motives to kill Kennedy. But they did it in partnership with some key figures in the US Government and Big Business in Texas, as well as a few leaders in Organized Crime. These last three groups had equally strong motives to rid themselves of Kennedy, and even stronger means to pull it off. The fact of the matter is that it was an ordinary but hidden coup d'etat, to take over the US government and reverse the policies of Kennedy. Policies that were detested by all of these groups. These groups had already found each other long before 1963.

They were in bed together. The most visible proof of that, is their efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro. The groups involved in that are the exact same groups that I have mentioned, this is a proven and public fact now, and they are the exact same people that ended up killing Kennedy. They were very much intertwined, and probably still are. Now if you want to put faces to these devils of power, you could best divide them first into a 3 level hierarchy. High level, mid level and operational level. The high level is the select group of conspirators, you may think of Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, George and Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles, oil barons Clint Murchison and H. L. Hunt, crime bosses Santo Trafficante, Sam Giancana and Carlos Marcello. It was actually a wider group than that, but it is difficult to pinpoint them all. After all, in a cover-up you have to work with circumstantial evidence, unless someone breaks the secrecy with a public confession.

The mid-level was the planning cadre, the managers, the puppet masters directing the pawns and the actual shooters. Two of those managers, the CIA calls them controllers, were E. Howard Hunt and his partner David Atlee Phillips. They are both legends in Covert Operations. Guy Banister in New Orleans is another example. The CIA also used assets to assist with the operational side. Philip Twombly for example, a very unknown name, was instrumental in providing the fake secret service badges that were made for the executives in Dealey Plaza. He was also in Dallas that day, as was Nixon, their cover was the Pepsi Cola bottling convention. So this mid group organizes the actual operation. They direct the shooters and their spotters. They are the operational level. And it is important to understand that these shooters do not necessarily have to know about each other's participation. That is what the CIA calls compartimentalization. They only take orders from their direct boss, they are not being told who else is involved in the operation, just to follow orders. This works horizontally and vertically in the organization. Even the mid level people do not have to know all the people at the top. One man to take the orders from is enough. For example, if Howard Hunt gets his orders from Dulles, he doesn't have to know that Dulles planned it with Nixon and Johnson. And Nixon and Johnson don't need to know the identities of the shooters. So at the top the conspiracy is rather closely held, although many people are used. The ground rules are CIA only, maximum security, non-attributability, plausible denial, need to know basis, no written communication. Another ground rule is "What you don't know can't hurt anybody." Interestingly, this rule is also applied by a control of the mass media, who hardly ever report on the JFK assassination, unless it is something nutty or disinformation, but the real critics of the official version are not given a voice by US media.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Start asking those guys questions, you might blow the whole Pandora's Box sky-high.
Not only would you be reopening the JFK assassination, but Iran-Contra too. Opening up "that whole Bay of Pigs thing" as Nixon put it as an excuse to obstruct justice in Watergate means opening up pretty much the entire history of illegal black ops. It might even mean getting into tangential programs dealing with mind control. Didn't Alpha 66 have connections with World Vision? "That whole Bay of Pigs thing" indeed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. Jeeze, like you COULD smear their reputations. Some things
just can't be done.

I'm sure you were being sarcastic but the remark made me giggle anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
36. Same with Gordon Liddy
and the rest of all those Watergate era crooks. Where were they on 11/22/63?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
58. Remember George H.W.'s odd ramblings at Gerry Ford's funeral
about the Warren Commission and how you could believe it because Ford was on it? I bet it wouldn't take more than a couple martinis to get him to finally tell all. First you get all blubbery over how W has ruined any change Jeb-Boy has to get into the White House and steer him around to all he (H.W.) has done "for" (I'd call it "to") his country and family.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #58
80. Bill Clinton has probably heard the whole sordid tale
from Poppy, after he became the son the old man never had. I saw a photo of a street scene taken just after the assassination, and I could swear a young Bush41 was standing there, cool as a cucumber, hands in pockets, just soaking up the beauty of the day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. I was in the 8th grade...
We KNEW something was wrong, were too young at the time to grasp it in its entirety but NEVER let it go. :mad:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. I was in 2nd grade...
My dad was in the Navy and we were returning to our home in Detroit for Thanksgiving holiday leave.

We heard the news on the car radio. It was a Rambler station wagon and I was riding way in the back. There was no seat, it was a flat area behind the middle seats.

For some reason -- perhaps an idea overheard at the time or a memory invented and instilled with each remembrance -- I recall thinking that "Things will never be the same."

We were right, Karenina. Personally, I think the nation's new leadership took us down the wrong path.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. allen dulles
he had a lot of power, and CIA
he was fired, and they put him on the warren commission?
thats like making John Wilkes Booth head of security at the Fords Theatre

I watched the movie JFK this weekend
i have read numerous books, and accounts of this tragedy

My conclusion is, the only persons or institution responsible, or could carry out such a thing
was the CIA, they had numurous coups, foreign intervention, assassinations during their years.

Even the doctors at Parkland said the neck wound was entry.


He was hit from front, in neck, his arms and hands come up in front of neck, he then is hit from behind in back, which pushes him forward a bit, then the fatal head shot from front.

they should change the name of Dulles airport,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. How Was The CIA Formed? By absorbing the Nazi war criminal infrastructure.
Agree with you completely, Parche.



How Was The CIA Formed?

By absorbing the Nazi war criminal infrastructure


by Jared Israel


===========================================================

On Oct 8, 1998, the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act became US law. This legislation:

...calls for the establishment of the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group to locate, identify, and make available to the public Nazi war criminal records. <1>

The IWGs task was to organize previously classified documents from the OSS, predecessor of the CIA, as well as from the CIA and other intelligence sources, and to make these documents available to the public. These were to include documents relating to possible collusion between US government organizations and Nazi war criminals.

Millions of pages have been released but very little information has trickled down to the broad public. And this trickle has been presented in a way calculated to minimize public awareness of the extent to which the Nazi apparatus was recruited in order - literally - to *become* the US covert operations and intelligence apparatus (the CIA etc.)

This story centers around the figure of Reinhard Gehlen.

===========================================================

Who was Reinhard Gehlen, and how did US intelligence use him?

===========================================================

From April 1942 on, Gehlen was head of German Armies East, the Nazi Armys intelligence corps in conquered Soviet territory. Commenting on the release of some previously classified documents concerning Gehlen, the IWG wrote:

Working immediately after the war with Army Intelligence, the Gehlen Organization became the responsibility of the CIA, which continued the relationship until 1956. One document released by the IWG on June 26, 2000, shows an early connection between the Strategic Services Unit (predecessor of the CIA) and Gehlens group. The SSU searched for members of Gehlens organization in POW camps and extensively interrogated them. As the Cold War developed during 1946, American intelligence officials found themselves lacking recent experience with Soviet intelligence activities and decided to use German experts on the Soviet Union - even though some may have been war criminals.<2>

The above paragraph includes not one false statement; yet it is completely misleading. This suggests that the IWGs talent may lie in disinformation rather than research.

1) The statement that the Gehlen organization was working...with Army Intelligence is misleading because working with implies equality of power: one does not work with men hiding from the law. The Nazis recruited by US intelligence were wanted for the worst war crimes; they were employees whose alternative was the hangman's noose. Surely they did what they were told.

2) The use of working with is also misleading because it suggests that Gehlens Organization (the 'Org) was separate from the Strategic Services Unit and later from the CIA. This is not true. Gehlens Org became a decisive, perhaps *the* decisive component of the CIAs worldwide apparatus. Its thousands of highly experienced operatives, much older than incoming CIA recruits, had to have a big effect on the culture of the CIA. Thus, US intelligence was Nazified.

3) The statement that, As the Cold War developed during 1946, American intelligence officials found themselves lacking recent experience with Soviet intelligence activities and decided to use German experts on the Soviet Union - even though some may have been war criminals, is false for three reasons.

a) First, it states that the advent of the so-called Cold War preceded the decision to use Gehlen. But in fact, the relationship between US intelligence and Gehlen began before World War II ended. That is, it began considerably before the outbreak of the Cold War.

b) Second, under the terms of the agreements at the Potsdam Conference, <2A>

"5. War criminals and those who have participated in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested and brought to judgment. Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials of Nazi organizations and institutions and any other persons dangerous to the occupation or its objectives shall be arrested and interned."

As we shall see, Gehlen and his Foreign Armies East organization did participate in "planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes."

CONTINUED...

http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/gehlen.htm



An excellent read on the subject is Blowback - America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effect on the Cold War by Christopher Simpson.

While We the People are at it, we should look into changing the name of the Bush Center for Intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
193. Project Paperclip ....
or is it Operation Paperclip" --

Evidently, JFK was beginning to find out about it --

There was an old movie made long ago ... The House On Carroll Street" ---


http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:House%20on%20Carroll%20Stre...

This was a 1988 REMAKE --

Looking for the original made long, long before that --

Synopsis: The House on Carroll Street (1988)In 1951, Emily Crane (Kelly McGillis), a Life magazine photography editor, is fired from her job for refusing to name names in a House Un-American Activities Committtee hearing. Undaunted by the extreme climate of McCarthyism and repression, Emily continues to associate with her liberal friends and takes a new job as a caretaker and reader for Miss Venable (Jessica...
In 1951, Emily Crane (Kelly McGillis), a Life magazine photography editor, is fired from her job for refusing to name names in a House Un-American Activities Committtee hearing. Undaunted by the extreme climate of McCarthyism and repression, Emily continues to associate with her liberal friends and takes a new job as a caretaker and reader for Miss Venable (Jessica Tandy), an elderly woman in her neighborhood. One day while working for Miss Venable, Emily overhears a suspicious conversation taking place in the house next door. She begins to suspect that she has stumbled upon a conspiracy to smuggle Nazi war criminals into the United States using the identities of dead Jews--a siniser plot that is being orchestrated by Selwan (Mandy Patinkin), a highly respected public official who led the investigation against her. Unfortunately, because Emily has been labeled a subversive and a communist, no one believes her, except for FBI agent Cochran (Jeff Daniels)--the love-struck agent assigned to follow her--and the conspirators themselves. As Emily and Agent Cochran hunt for the truth, they become entangled in a web of murder and intrigue that threatens their lives. Peter Yates's enchanting period thriller ends with a grand Hitchcockian finale in New York's Grand Central Station.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
61. Dulles is named for John Foster
Allen's brother. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morning Dew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. I just wanted to thank you, Octafish, for all the work and passion.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. Know your BFEE
Bartcop used the phrase and it seemed a great way to get a handle on a difficult thing to think about.
Seeing an old Dick Tracy Sunday comic gave me an idea for a way of warning We the People about the dangers
of concentrated power and wealth.



The thing is, these aren't ordinary crooks. They are gentlemanly and gracious and mannered in public.



However, the organization the BFEE represents hijacked the government and uses the powers of state to enrich their cronies and terrorize their enemies -- meaning liberals, progressives and those opposing the status quo. The deaths of President Kennedy, Senator Kennedy and Dr. King should make that perfectly clear.



For those interested in the subject:

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 Whos 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! Its 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 Nations 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: Americas 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: Poppys 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 couldnt 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: Poppys CIA Made Saddam Into the Butcher of Baghdad

Know your BFEE: Hitlers 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 arent labeled Know Your BFEE, but theyre 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.

BFEE Is More than Capable of Bombing Their Own Countrymen

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


And for all my friends in those hard-to-reach areas:


A Short History of Conspiracy Theory


More on the subject:

Know your BFEE: Oliver North, Drug Dealer

DEA Agents Agree: CIA means Cocaine Importation Agency

Note: 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.

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 in the future.

The subject is a work in progress. It's not personal. It's not business. It's about democracy.


Thank you, Morning Dew. I get no joy out of the subject. That's why I appreciate you caring. Sharing the load is the only way to make its study bearable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
91. Thanks for giving US everything you DU here bro, have a good thanksgiving tomorrow
and thanks for the compilation of BFEE links in this thread.

It's always time to call for the ROUNDUP of these KNOWN BFEE CRIMINALS regardless of "popular sentiment" among the "politically aware"-there is no statute of limitations for MURDER nor TREASON among other things.

WE, THE PEOPLE have got to take the lead in this-like it clearly states in our Constitution...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #91
104. Back at You, Bob! You've been my teacher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
123. Don't encourage Octafish!
It only causes him to post longer and longer responses, much to the embarrassment of the non-paranoid among us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #123
125. To avoid embarassment, stopbush, don't post.
Short enough for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #125
127. Feathers ruffled? Don't blame me for my posts. I get my instructions
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 11:34 AM by stopbush
from the BFEE. ;)

BTW - aren't you the person who complains about others shutting down the discussion on the JFK murder? Looks like you don't practice what you preach, at least when it comes to others offering a contrary, evidence-based discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #127
130. You've more than 80 posts on this and the other thread. Not once did I tell you to stop the spam.
If you do get your instructions from the BFEE, you should be ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. Uh, my reference to the BFEE was a joke.
Don't tell me you didn't get that. I even supplied a smiley face emoticon to make the point clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #130
135. BTW - the fact that you term the overwhelming evidence "spam" says a lot about your views
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 12:39 PM by stopbush
AND your credibility when it comes to the JFK murder.

It's clear that you want free reign to dig around in your JFK CT sandbox. You seem hurt that not everyone here chooses to greet you as a champion of a deeply hidden truth. You can't seem to handle it when your half-baked theories and misrepresentations of the WCR are challenged directly by the evidence and the actual words of the WCR itself.

Spam indeed.

BTW - you didn't answer my question on the sourcing of that photograph that purportedly shows David Ferrie and Oswald together in a military setting. Care to clarify at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter
Here's what Gaeton Fonzi wrote about two years after the Warren Commission report came out. Fonzi later would be an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations reports:



The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter

By Gaeton Fonzi
Greater Philadelphia Magazine, 1 August 1966

It is difficult to believe the Warren Commission Report is the truth.

Arlen Specter knows it.

SNIP..

There was, however, another strange occurrence on the knoll after the shooting.

This is from the testimony of Seymour Weitzman, a Dallas deputy constable, being questioned by Commission counsel Joseph Ball:

Mr. Weitzman: I immediately ran toward the Presidents car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didnt know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. Ball: What is the location of that wall?
Mr. Weitzman: It would be behind the railroad overpass andwhat do you call itthe monument section
Mr. Ball: What did you notice in the railroad yards?
Mr. Weitzman: We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.
Mr. Ball: Were there other people there besides you?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well.

And this from the testimony of Dallas patrolman Joe Marshall Smith; taken by Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler:

Mr. Liebeler: You proceeded up to an area immediately behind the concrete structure hereis that right?
Mr. Smith: I was checking all the bushes and I checked all the cars in the parking lot.
Mr. Liebeler: There is a parking lot behind this grassy area back from Elm Street toward the railroad tracks, and you went down to the parking lot and looked around?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasnt alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there.
I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman (screaming They are shooting the President from the bushes) I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I dont know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.
Mr. Liebeler: Did you accost this man?
Mr. Smith: Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.
Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember who it was?
Mr. Smith: No, sir, I dont

Thus, two reliable witnesses, law enforcement officers, testified to the Commission that they saw Secret Service men on the grassy knoll immediately after the shooting.

CONTINUED...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth...



As for answering your questions, what's the point? You already know everything you want to know.

PS: Thanks for making it personal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. I'm no fan of Arlen Specter these days, but it must be noted that while
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 06:28 PM by stopbush
he was involved with the WC, he pressed to include the real autopsy photos to show the location of the gunshot wounds. He did this when he realized the drawings of the gunshot wounds were quite inaccurate, and he feared that people in later years would make a meal out of the differences between the photos and the drawings.

And I can't believe you're putting forth Gaeton Fonzi of the fanciful The Last Investigation as a credible source. Please!

Let me ask you, Octafish: why do you never source the WCR or any other "official" evidence to back your claims? Do you distrust it 100%?

Let me ask you just three questions, and I'd appreciate answers, if you don't mind:

1. Do you believe that JFK and Connally were aligned a) dead center to each other in the limo, or do you believe b) they were aligned with Connally seated 6 inches in from the side of the limo and 3 inches lower than JFK? A simple answer will do.

2. If you said "b," do you agree that the men were aligned in a way that it made it possible that a single bullet could have hit both men, passing thru JFK and entering Connally?

3. Do you agree that Oswald achieved the rank of sharpshooter in 1956?

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eowyn_of_rohan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #127
206. It would not be a surprise if you did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #123
139. I'm not paranoid.
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 04:34 PM by H2O Man
And I think the work that Octafish provides on DU is outstanding.

I'm not concerned if people hold different opinions on a topic such as Dallas than I do. I encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to read everything they can -- from Octafish to Vincent Bugliosi. People should think for themselves -- something, I think, that both Octafish and Mr. Bugliosi advocate.

More: over the years, there have been issues that Octafish and I do not agree on, but without exception, we have never had a harsh word or insult pass between us. One of the advantages of having that type of relationship is that it does allow for us to keep an open mind, and perhaps from time to time learn something new. I can say for sure that I've learned from him, and that includes using him as a resource when I've been looking for information on a variety of topics.

There isn't an individual on DU that I have more respect for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #139
143. You may not be paranoid. One need not be paranoid to find tales of conspiracy to be
entertaining and engaging. They are. The question is: are they credible and true?

As far as the "work" offered by Octafish being "outstanding": well, I've only read his "work" on the JFK murder, and it is run-of-the-mill CT in every respect. Most of this "work" has been handily debunked in far greater detail than we DU posters care to take the time to do.

And I agree with you: people should be free to read Octafish or Bugliosi or whoever they please in regards to the JFK shooting, but I would gently suggest that they buy a copy of the WCR and begin their reading there. Then, when Octa and his fellow CTers allege that "Oswald was a poor shot," you can reference the EVIDENCE presented in the WCR that clearly disputes that claim. When they talk about the trajectory of a "magic bullet" you can reference the WCR and see that there is absolutely NOTHING in the WCR that provides a seating arrangement or a bullet trajectory that would necessitate such a fanciful and ludicrous suspension of the laws of physics. Do this for a while as I and others have done and you'll soon find that the WCR rarely says what the CTers say that it says. When you then realize that most if not all of their paranoid scenarios are based upon misinformation and lies that they themselves have conveniently created, well, you start to find the Arlen Specters of the world to be quite reliable in comparison.

But don't take my word for it. Read the posts of conspiracy-sympathetic DUers in this very thread to see how many allege that Oswald was a lousy shot or that no shooters hired by the WC matched Oswald's feat of shooting or that a target hit from the back NEVER recoils back towards the direction from whence came the shot. No, I'm afraid that there's overwhelming evidence that that large number of Duers (and Americans, for that matter) prefer the tale to the evidence.

There's hope, though. Just as the "heroics" of the 7th Cavalry at Custer's Last Stand took over a century to debunk, it may take later generations to view the evidence in the JFK case openly and dispassionately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. Sometimes there are issues
that are neither entertaining nor engaging. They raise questions: What is credible? And what is true?

I would also urge people to read The Official Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Personally, I agree with Mr. Bugliosi that the Commission by and large made a sincere search for the truth.

After reading that, I'd suggest reading Tip O'Neill's autobiography, "Man of the House." He used to believe the Warren Commission's Report. But then, in the summer of 1968, he and a few friends gathered together. Two of them -- Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell -- had been in the vehicle behind JFK in Dallas. Both told O'Neill that they knew that shots came from the grassy knoll. O'Neill asked why neither had told the Warren Commission? They explained that the FBI investigators pressured them to lie.

That strikes me as being something other than entertaining or engaging. Knowing a bit about investigations, and about the consequences of knowingly introducing false information to a group of people -- be they a jury or a commission -- I think it raises the question: What is credible?

Then I would recommend Lamar Waldon and Thom Hartmann's book "Ultimate Sacrifice." In it, they produce evidence that intelligence agencies did not provide to the Warren Commission. It is worth noting that even Vince Bugliosi considers them to be reputable researchers. The failure to produce evidence to a group of people evaluating a crime -- be it a jury or a commission -- also raises a question: What is the truth?

Calling things a "conspiracy" in an attempt to discredit a theory strikes me as curious. Even Vince Bugliosi, as an attorney after leaving the LA DA's office, entered documents in a court case that were intended to open the way for showing that there was a conspiracy in the murder of RFK. Of course, the official version of that event is that there was no conspiracy.

Again, I do not find it offensive in the least if people believe differently than I might on any given case. My interest in these issues is simply that of a person who is interested in both history, and how our country is run. As such, I think there is value in listening to a wide range of opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #144
153. Of course there are conspiracies, but it does no good to label everything a conspiracy.
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 12:02 PM by stopbush
Not all assassinations are conspiracy based, but some are. The mistake is in assuming that ALL assassinations are conspiracies just as surely as it would be a mistake to say no assassinations are conspiracies.

If we're closed minded, we assert that there are never conspiracies. If we are paranoid, we assert there are always conspiracies. If we're INTELLIGENT about it, we let the evidence decide for us.

As far as Bugliosi entering documents to investigate the murder of RFK as a conspiracy, that doesn't prove there was a conspiracy, but it proves that Bugliosi is open minded about the possibilities. IMO, that would add credibility to his claims about the JFK assassination as it makes me think that he didn't approach the subject with an ax to grind. I haven't read his briefs on the RFK murder, but I would assume that they are evidence-based claims, perhaps involving bullet trajectories determined from slugs that lodged themselves in the walls of the room and the victim.

Bugliosi has applied the same evidence-based examination to the JFK assassination, and he has determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WCR got it right. There are no loose ends to consider at this point, at least in the major aspects of the case, ie: who did it, why did he do it, how many bullets/shooters were there, where did the bullets come from and where did they go, etc.

I agree with you that we should be open to listening to opinions, but when those opinions cross the line into ignoring, misrepresenting or outright lying about the evidence and/or the WCR, then I think we are beholden to stand up for the truth, just as one needs to stand up for, say, the truth of the facts surrounding natural selection when the idiotic hypothesis of intelligent design is advanced in our schools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. Easier to discuss the subject or shameless self-kick?
It used to be known as a "dupe". Whatever...carry on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. I asked Octafish to open a second thread n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I was too late to recommend the first one.
Thanks again, sir. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. Bush the elder had a lot to do with it.
And I'm sure that the reason that he became president in the first place was to cover his tracks. The right wing had as much to gain from JFK's assassination as LBJ did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
49. Perhaps a Federal Grand Jury can ask him about these FBI memos...
George Herbert Walker Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.

We know this because that is what he -- Poppy -- told the FBI.

We also know, from the same FBI report, that Poppy heard someone threaten to kill President Kennedy.

Why did Bush wait until AFTER JFK was assassinated to come foward with the warning?

Here's the document:



Here's a transcript of the text:



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

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

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

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

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

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

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

# # #




Here's background:

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

Here's where to get more information:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Ge...

Here's another document, a report dated a week after the assassination from J Edgar Hoover about briefing a "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" on the feelings of the pro- and anti-Castro Cuban exile communities in Miami just after the assassination.



More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapata_Corporation#Two_FBI...

A transcript of the above:



Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

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

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

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

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

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

# # #



What's also interesting is -- after the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Watergate, the October Surprise, Iran-Contra, Iraqgate, BCCI, Inslaw-PROMIS, the S&L fiasco and a myriad more modern treasons perpetrated by his dim son and various relations -- just how many people want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt when it comes to asking him about them.

Thank you for giving a damn, EOO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #49
194. The one thing that has always puzzled me is...
Was Oswald killed because Jack Ruby had a motive - or was he killed to be silenced per Poppy Bush's orders? That is still the big mystery to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. One thing I recall reading about Oswald's Marine Corps service, was
that he was only a Marksmen, short of not qualifying on the rifle range, that's the lowest designation of shooter, with Sharpshooter and Expert being the top ranks.

On top of that I would imagine shooting a President would give most people an adrenalin rush that would make being accurate even more difficult, particularly in such a short period of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. -
Kennedy was 175 to 265 feet away the distance varied because the vehicle was moving away from the shooter.Oswald used the Italian made Mannlicher Carcono rifle which would could easily hit its target out to 200 yards.Despite what conspiracy theorist try to say about Oswalds shooting abilities his military record showed him to be an excellent shooter.During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter ,twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle. Although, in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman, a lower classification than that of sharpshooter, military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".

There were 3 shots fired and only 2 hit Kennedy that is an accuracy of only about 66% Oswalds military record was much much higher at 96-98%.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/350943
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. Wrong. Oswald scored a 212 on his 1956 shooting test which classified him a SHARPSHOOTER.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 05:36 PM by stopbush
He fared less well in 1959 when he scored only a 191 which qualified him as a MARKSMAN.

THE USMC had three classifications of shooter, from good to best: marksman - sharpshooter - expert. In 1956, Oswald scored in the better category.

Looking at the two scores, the USMC considered him to be average to above average when compared to Marines who had similar training. They rated him "good to excellent" when compared to civilians who didn't have the same training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I would say partially wrong. I wasn't aware of his first shooting test in 1956, but
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 06:03 PM by Uncle Joe
If you average his scores they come 201.5

That's Marksman level.

His latest score was Marksman.

210-219 is Sharpshooter

And if I remember correctly 220-250 is Expert.

As I stated in my post, I believe shooting at any President would hinder normal effectiveness as well, considering the obvious adrenalin rush.

Edit for P.S. To my knowledge Oswald had never been in combat, so this would be the first time, he ever shot at anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Dosen't matter. Military is much more liberal in their scoring.
than in civilian scoring.
I was just below Expert when I gave it up and I did not believe then or now that I could have pulled off what Oswald supposedly did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. So, when the FACTS cause problems with the myth that Oswald was a poor
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 06:24 PM by stopbush
shooter, the CT solution is to denigrate the military's training and scoring. OK, fine. I'm sure all of the sharpshooters and expert shooters in the USMC past and present will be quite alright with that.

As far as you not being able to pull off what Oswald did, have you ever tried? Probably not. The fact remains - he still did it. It was no miracle. Other shooters in subsequent tests have bettered his rate of fire and accuracy, and substantially so.

The standard isn't that Oswald PROBABLY could have done it, only that it was POSSIBLE that he could have done it. The JFK shooting may have been improbable for a man of Oswald's skill, but it was hardly impossible. Indeed, the evidence proves that he did it, believe it or not.

BTW - too bad it wasn't Oswald who "gave it up" when it came to shooting. The world would have been a better place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. Who WAS Lee Harvey Oswald?
He wasn't just a mad Marine with a mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano.

Here he is photographed with David Ferrie, named as a suspect in the assassination by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison:



Joan Mellen is a professor of English at Temple University. Among her works, is "A Farewell to Justice."

In the following address, she asks some excellent questions. And she provides some truth to what We the People now know about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.



Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

by Joan Mellen
Copyright 2008 Joan Mellen. All Rights Reserved.
(ed note: this essay first appeared on www.joanmellen.com )

This talk was delivered on October 5, 2008 at the Wecht Institute's Symposium: Making Sense of the Sixties

EXCERPT...

Drawing on what we know as certain, the Oswald who is recognizable to us was born in New Orleans, and seems rarely to have been deprived of the company of others. Certainly, he was not a loner in Dallas where he was offered the friendship of CIA asset and so-called oil geologist (he had no degree in the subject) George de Mohrenschildt. De Mohrenschildt reported to the Domestic Contact Service (00) in Dallas on Haitian matters, the existing record shows. The quintessential unreliable narrator, a year before his death, de Mohrenschildt targeted Haroldson Lafayette Hunt as the sponsor of the Kennedy assassination. Coincidentally, H. L. Hunt was unique among Texas oil men in being a lifelong antagonist of the CIA, as has been his son, Nelson Bunker Hunt. It was, perhaps, de Mohrenschildts final Agency assignment.

Nor was Oswald particularly solitary in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 where his presence was noted at anti-Castro training camps north of Lake Pontchartrain.

Almost from the moment of his arrival in New Orleans from Texas in April 1963, Oswald sought the acquaintance of CIA and FBI assets. He attempted to infiltrate anti-Castro groups. By the time he was arrested on Canal Street in August, he was so well acquainted with the FBI field office that he told the officer interviewing him, Lieutenant Francis Martello of New Orleans police intelligence, Call the FBI. Tell them you have Lee Oswald in custody. It was a moment that Martello neglected to describe to the Warren Commission which he held in utter contempt until the end of his life, as former police intelligence officer Robert Buras, working for the House Select Committee, and a long-time Martello acquaintance, told me.

Supporting the conclusion that the CIA was behind the Kennedy assassination is the fact that in New Orleans Oswald associated only with people with intelligence connections, beginning with Arnesto Rodriguez, an FBI informant with family members rooted in the CIAs clandestine services. Rodriguez was one of FBI Special Agent Warren de Brueys informants. One day Oswald appeared at Rodriguezs office at the International Trade Mart building at 124 Camp Street. He wanted to help the Cubans, Oswald said. He wanted to be part of the training camps. Rodriguez was suspicious. Who had sent Oswald to him? he wondered. How did Oswald know that there was a training camp across the lake from us, north of Lake Pontchartrain? It was top secret at the time, yet Oswald knew about it.

Pilot David Ferrie was a CIA asset whom Oswald knew from his youth in the Civil Air Patrol and with whom he renewed his acquaintance that summer. They were joined in their travels by Clay Shaw, a CIA operative whose activities were charted by at least five CIA components. The sources who observed Oswald with Shaw and Ferrie in those hamlets north of Baton Rouge are unimpeachable, and include Dr. Frank Silva, the medical director of the East Louisiana State Hospital at Jackson where Oswald applied for a job.

CONTINUED...

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



I don't know if he was a traitor or a patsy. I do know he was Pretty complicated fellow, Mr. Oswald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #50
73. What is the source of that photograph? And how can one tell that
that is David Ferrie? The Oswald looks a lot like Oswald, but the guy who is second from the left is wearing a helmet, isn't he? Hard to tell who that is. Or are you saying the guy bending over and stirring the pot is Ferrie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
51. Agreed. Of course it is possible that Oswald shot JFK
There is no solid evidence either way. It was unfortunate that the Chain of Evidence was compromised to the extent that it was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #51
67. Lots of solid evidence that Oswald was the shooter.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 11:27 PM by stopbush
It's all in the WCR if you bother to read it.

Chain of evidence compromised? On what? The bag Oswald used to bring the gun to work? Even that ridiculous claim has been debunked many years ago.

Perhaps you can provide some examples of COE problems. I'd like to hear them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #67
111. Dallas Police Officer Marion Baker found Oswald calmly sipping a cola in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
It seems to me that Oswald wouldn't have had time to fire three shots, hide the rifle behind some boxes, jog down four flights of stairs, buy a coke or whatever and sit down -- all in about 90 seconds.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VStz_I0QcB0C&pg=PA30&l...

Three people placed Oswald in the lunchroom -- one 15 minutes before and two after the assassination. It seems to me the Warren Commission missed the meaning of that, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #111
214. PLUS ...someone was eating their lunch on 6th floor until 12:15 -- Saw no one .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
161. Neither myself nor Oswald could have fired two in rapid succession.
Not with that rifle. At least 40 witnesses including the driver of Kennedy's limo testified that they heard a delay after the first shot,and then heard two shots fired nearly simultaneously or in very quick succession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #161
164. Entirely disputed by the Zapruder film evidence.
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 07:28 PM by stopbush
First shot missed. Second shot hit JFK and Connally. Third shot hit JFK in the head. Minimum time between the second and third shot, 6 seconds. Maximum time between the second and third shot, 7 seconds.

If a gap of 6-7 seconds is "nearly simultaneously" then we agree.

BTW - a test shooter used by the WC got all THREE shots off in 4.6 seconds WITH OSWALD'S RIFLE. Guess he was better than you...and Oswald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. Zapruder film doesn't show magic bullets.


And the so-called test shooter wasn't firing upon a living president either, so I am not sure what that proves.

"Guess he was better than you...and Oswald"

You can guess but you don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #166
168. There was no magic bullet. Second shot hit JFK and Connally, no questions whatsoever.
Now, if you want to talk about IMAGINARY bullets, then you need to turn to the CTs. They're loaded with 'em!

Test shooter I mentioned hit a target at 300 yards - 3 shots in 4.6 seconds. All bullets hit the target. He used Oswald's rifle.

Oswald fired three shots in 8.5 seconds with the target for the 3rd shot - the kill shot - only 88 yards away. First shot missed the target. second & third hit. Hardly impossible. In fact, quite probable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #168
171. But this "accidented" witness said it was a Mauser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #171
174. Already explained in great deal by the WCR. The Mauser bore a close resemblance to
Oswald's MC. Roger Craig is a sad figure in the JFK saga. He got SO much of it wrong on that fateful day, including misidentifying the rifle. I don't hold it against him. May he rest in peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #174
176. However another Dallas Officer reported a Mauser
Edited on Sat Nov-29-08 02:41 AM by Artiechoke
A former Air Force POW at that who ran a sporting goods store for a while.
Like Craig, he also suffered a major nervous breakdown.


typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #176
178. So, he misidentified it as well. Other reports said it was a British Enfield.
Edited on Sat Nov-29-08 11:54 AM by stopbush
Did either of the witnesses touch the rifle or do a close physical examination? I don't know. I'm asking. One can't blame them if the saw the rifle from any distance.

The recovery of the rifle was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV, and his footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Various websites show the two rifles together. They look very similar. That was also the conclusion of the WC.

There's every chance that the rifle was misidentified as a Mauser simply because that rifle was better known at the time than the Mannlicher-Carcano. The Mauser was widely used by Germans in WWII.

Finally, there is this from the House Select Committee on Assassinations report on firearms, Vol 7:

Could a 6.5-millimeter caliber Mannlicher-Carcano rifle be easily mistaken for a 7.65-millimeter caliber German Mauser rifle? What are the obvious differing characteristics, if any?

"(161) In the opinion of the panel, a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could very easily be mistaken for other military rifles of its general type, including the 7.65-millimeter caliber German and other model Mausers.

(162) At one time, bolt-action rifles like the German Mauser, the Argentine Mauser (which is made in Germany) and the Mannlicher-Carcanos were the standard military weapons of most countries. Although manufactured in many different calibers and models, all have the same general characteristics--right-hand action (bolt mechanisms), a full-length wooden stock covering most of the barrel, a sling attachment, bayonet mounting lugs and a generally rough and dull appearance. In the absence of a complete examination, almost any such bolt-action military rifle could be confused with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. (See figs. 1,2, and 25.)

(163) Further, the caliber of a rifle cannot be determined merely by looking at it. For example, the bore of the 7.65-millimeter caliber German Mauser, or other 7.65-millimeter caliber rifles, is only 0.05 inches larger than the 6.5-millimeter caliber Mannlicher-Carcano. Even if a knowledgeable individual identified a particular rifle after a cursory examination, it is unlikely that the caliber could be readily established without further examination."

Another honest - and quickly corrected - mistake blown into a CT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #176
191. Experts misidentified the rifle ...!! More than one was found and ....
NO chain-of-evidence for the alleged rifle ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #191
208. Absolutely incorrect. COE was unbroken from the moment Oswald's
rifle was discovered. No expert who actually examined the rifle mis-identified it.

You're hopeless on this stuff. You can't get a single fact right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #168
190. The wound in neck had NO exit -- Wound in his right shoulder had No outlet......
Finck at sutopsy:

"Looks like half his brain is gone.

Who's in charge here? Admiral Kinney?"



ADDITIONALLY, that wound in the REAR of JFK's body was in his RIGHT SHOULDER at

a 45 degree DOWNWARD angle.

Again ... both wounds had NO outlet ...

Right shoulder wound probed by Finck more than once --- "no outlet" --

Bye bye "Magic Bullet" --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #190
213. Wound in the neck was the EXIT wound from the shot in JFK's upper back.
There was no shot in JFK's shoulder. The autopsy photos make this clear. The autopsy drawing clearly shows the entry would in the neck.

Where do you get your awful information?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #213
218. The FBI agents who watched the autopsy said the wound was in the BACK, below the SHOULDERS.
Here's JFK's shirt...



The doctor who performed an autopsy said the back wound went in "two-three inches" and that the bullet fell out of it, according to the two FBI agents present.



The FBIs Sibert and ONeill Report

DL 100-10461/cv

EXCERPT...

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

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

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

CONTINUED...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/History/The_deed/Sibert-O\...



The doctor said it was possible the missing bullet was the same as the one later found on a stretcher at the hospital. It would become the famous CE 399 "magic bullet."

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Invest...

Why would the Warren Commission foist this fiction?

Without it, the magic bullet theory is completely impossible.

Details here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #218
232. "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."
If I'm looking at your sheet correctly that was the statement BEFORE Ford changed it --

There's a copy of the actual report from the autopsy where Finck marked it by hand --

I'll see if I can find it ..

BUT -- about time public knew BOTH wounds had NO EXIT --

and wound in rear was at 45%--60% angle ---!!

Magic Bullet is fable and FORD was co-conspirator covering up ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #166
215. A wound in JFK's neck with no outlet cannot connect to a wound in JFK's ...
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 04:07 PM by defendandprotect
right shoulder/rear -- which btw was also probed by Finck at autopsy

and had no outlet--!!!

FURTHER, right shoulder wound was at 45 degree DOWNWARD angle --


However, Finck did comment:

"Looks like half his brain is gone."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. You need to read the report on Oswald's abilities per the USMC
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 06:27 PM by stopbush
as documented in the WCR.

In brief, the USMC cannot account for the reasons behind the lower of the two scores as the documentation on the conditions of the SECOND test are non existent. The USMC speculates that Oswald may have been shooting under adverse weather conditions or using a defective rifle for that second test. That fact that they cut him slack on the lower score indicates that they had faith in his shooting ability, not unreasonable for a man who scored as a sharpshooter early in his USMC career. One would assume that his shooting would only get better after 3 additional years in the Corp.

In any case, you would be incorrect to average the two scores together. That point is made clear by the USMC personnel who considered the results of BOTH TESTS and evaluated his abilities for the WC, describing his shooting abilities as "good to excellent."

In addition, Oswald became an avid hunter after leaving the USMC, even joining a hunting club during his time in Russia. Marina's testimony to the WC said that he also took target practice with the rifle that would become the assassination weapon.

This was a man who was an excellent shooter and who kept his skill up by hunting in his civilian life. Sorry that doesn't fit into the CT narrative, but the truth rarely does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. You're partially correct,
in that truth rarely fits in to conspiracy theory, but that's usually the case unless the theory evolves to known fact.

Conspiracy theory would be the idea that more than one person is involved in a crime. As to why this idea could so easily be dismissed by some when the prime suspect was murdered within days after arrest and before ever going to trial seems to be a premature assumption to me.

I also believe shooting a President wouldn't be on the same adrenalin scale as shooting an animal and as I stated above Oswald to my knowledge never faced combat and never shot at another human until that day. This isn't to say he couldn't have done it, but I consider this to be of some mitigating circumstance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Actually, Oswald did shoot at another human being 7 months before he shot JFK.
Oswald attempted to assassinate General Edwin A. Walker in his home on April 10, 1963. The event is included in the WCR. Marina Oswald testified to this attempt and remained consistent in her account. The House Select Committee analyzed the bullet recovered from Walker's house using Neutron Activitation Analysis, and concluded that the bullet was "probably a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet"

Here (if you're interested): http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. That is interesting and thanks for the link, but it also raises a question.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 06:52 PM by Uncle Joe
The Attempt on the Life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker
"At approximately 9 p.m., on April 10, 1963, in Dallas, Tex.,"

"Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, an active and controversial figure on
the American political scene since his resignation from the U.S.
Army in 1961, narrowly escaped death when a rifle bullet fired
from outside his home passed near his head as he was seated at
his desk. There were no eyewitnesses, although a 14-year-old boy
in a neighboring house claimed that immediately after the
shooting he saw two men, in separate cars, drive out of a church
parking lot adjacent to Walker's home. A friend of Walker's
testified that two nights before the shooting he saw "two men
around the house peeking in windows." General Walker gave this
information to the police before the shooting, but it did not
help solve the crime. Although the bullet was recovered from
Walker's house (see app. X, p. 562), in the absence of a weapon
it was of little investigatory value. General Walker hired two
investigators to determine whether a former employee might have
been involved in the shooting. Their results were negative.
Until December 3, 1963, the Walker shooting remained unsolved."

Apparently this was a conspiracy because it seems to have involved more than one person, per the witnesses.

I would think this also sets some form of modus operandi for an assassination attempt by Oswald. If two men were involved in the attempt on Gen Walker's life, why is it so difficult to believe two men weren't involved on President Kennedy's assassination?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Yes, the two men question is interesting, But remember that there
were no eyewitnesses to the shooting and the person who saw the "two men" was 14-year-old boy. In addition, I wonder whether people attempting a shooting would park their getaway car in a church parking lot NEXT TO the home of their intended victim.

More interesting is the fact that Oswald left a note for Marina AHEAD of the shooting attempt telling her what to do if he was killed and after the shooting confessed to her that he did take the shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Actually General Walker's friend was also a witness
"A friend of Walker's
testified that two nights before the shooting he saw "two men
around the house peeking in windows."

"Photographs.---In her testimony before the Commission in
February 1964, Marina Oswald stated that when Oswald returned
home on the night of the Walker shooting, he told her that he had
been planning the attempt for 2 months. He showed her a notebook
3 days later containing photographs of General Walker's home and
a map of the area where the house was located. Although Oswald
destroyed the notebook, three photographs found among Oswald's
possessions after the assassination were identified by Marina
Oswald as photographs of General Walker's house. Two of these
photographs were taken from the rear of Walker's house.
The
Commission confirmed, by comparison with other photographs, that
these were, indeed, photographs of the rear of Walker's house.
An examination of the window at the rear of the house, the wall
through which the bullet passed, and the fence behind the house
indicated that the bullet was fired from a position near the
point where one of the photographs was taken."

<snip>

As for the church,Marina Oswald stated.

"Additional corroborative evidence.---The admissions made to
Marina Oswald by her husband are an important element in the
evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot at General Walker.
As shown above, the note and the photographs of Walker's house
and of the nearby railroad tracks provide important corroboration
for her account of the incident. Other details described by
Marina Oswald coincide with facts developed independently of her
statements. She testified that her husband had postponed his
attempt to kill Walker until that Wednesday because he had heard
that there was to be a gathering at the church next door to
Walker's house on that evening. He indicated that he wanted more
people in the vicinity at the time of the attempt so that his
arrival and departure would not attract great attention.
An
official of this church told FBI agents that services are held
every Wednesday at the church except during the month of August.
Marina Oswald also testified that her husband had used a bus
to return home. A study of the bus routes indicates that Oswald
could have taken any one of several different buses to Walker's
house or to a point near the railroad tracks where he may have
concealed the rifle. It would have been possible for him to take
different routes in approaching and leaving the scene of the
shooting."

This could explain why they parked in a church parking lot during services.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #47
76. Walker was FIRED by JFK -- he also led racist RIOT at Ole Miss ---
Walker was fired for distributing r-w propaganda in military ---

The Strange Case of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker


General Edwin A. Walker is known to most JFK assassination buffs as
the man whom Oswald allegedly shot at in April 1963. The general's
right-wing connections are often noted, as is the fact that he was
forced out of his command by the Kennedy administration for his
political indoctrination of his troops. His activities during the
race riots in Oxford, Mississippi in 1962 are also often mentioned,
when he was arrested on four federal charges including insurrection.

His public statement at Oxford was as follows:

This is Edwin A. Walker. I am in Mississippi beside Gov. Ross
Barnett. I call for a national protest against the conspiracy
from within.

Rally to the cause of freedom in righteous indignation, violent
vocal protest and bitter silence under the flag of Mississippi
at the use of Federal troops.

This today is a disgrace to the nation in 'dire peril,' a
disgrace beyond the capacity of anyone except its enemies.
This is the conspiracy of the crucifixion by anti-Christ
conspirators of the Supreme Court in their denial of prayer
and their betrayal of a nation.



The Army ordered General Walker to undergo psychiatric testing.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/WALKER.TX...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #45
87. After reading your link yesterday, last night a couple of other points occurred to me.
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 02:02 PM by Uncle Joe
This is subject of course to your link being factually correct.

1. Oswald formed a relationship of trust with an accomplice in an attempt against General Walker's life. Two witnesses place two suspicious men at the scene of this assassination attempt either just before the attempt or immediately afterward.

2. The modus operandi of parking the getaway cars in a church parking lot during services when many cars would be there as opposed to conspicuous cars being parked in private driveways has something in common with escaping to a theater after the assassination attempt against President Kennedy. In both instances attempting to blend in with crowds or their cars immediately after-wards is the prevalent action of escape.

3. Oswald would've have been disappointed at his failure to take out General Walker, I would imagine the Marine Sharpshooter/Marksman's confidence might have been shaken. If he were planning to attempt shooting a moving target after missing a stationary one, it seems logical to me having two assassins do the shooting would have crossed their minds as increasing their chances of success.

This doesn't relate to your link but I wonder about the figure on the grassy knoll, why would someone be hiding in the bushes when a Presidential Motorcade drives by? I would think most people would want to be front and center waving or being seen. Maybe this was just a homeless person or someone taking a pee, but if it was a second assassin, I would lay better than even odds this was the second man in the Walker Assassination attempt.

As a side note I wonder if anyone has ever tried to digitally clean the photo of the figure on the grassy knoll up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #87
119. Well, Uncle Joe, I'm happy that my link has got you thinking.
That said, why are you wasting time engaging in useless conjecture about the grassy knoll?

To be truthful, I was a bit surprised when you displayed a lack of knowledge about Oswald's shooter ranking in post #10 above. I was further surprised when you commented that you didn't believe Oswald ever shot at another human being before shooting JFK. These posts clearly demonstrate - at least to me - that your knowledge of the JFK assassination is based at least in part on the urban legends of the CT crowd, not the WCR or the real evidence in the case, evidence that is overwhelming. I find this to be the case with most people that I meet - they believe there was a conspiracy and find Oliver Stone's fiction to be a compelling truth.

So, you're not unique in this sense, but I get the feeling that you COULD be one of the unique ones who takes the time to actually read the WCR, not only to gain a point of reference, but to get some REAL knowledge about the case.

BTW - yes, technicians have tried their best to digitally clean-up the "image" of the Badgeman. There simply isn't enough there to grab onto, possibly because there isn't actually anyone standing there in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #119
140. I've never watched Oliver Stone's movie,
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 04:40 PM by Uncle Joe
and I wasn't aware of the General Walker assassination attempt but aside from my knowledge or lack thereof, conjecture forms the basis of all investigation, that's why I'm asking questions. After reading your link though, it raised more questions than it answered as to Oswald's, perceived "lone wolf assassin" status, apparently in this case there was an accomplice, this forms a modus operandi.

Also as to my earlier post, it may not have just been Oswald losing some confidence after missing General Walker, his accomplice may lost confidence in Oswald's marksmanship ability as well. Unless you reject the two eyewitnesses' contention within your link that cites two suspicious men's activities before and after the General Walker Assassination attempt.

I do have one question if you don't mind, did the Warren Commission Report post conjecture or comment as to the number of potential assassins trying to kill General Walker?

It also seems to me the grassy knoll has become of interest as a possible location in regards to a possible second assassin. I'm not eliminating any other potential location by this line of questioning.

However regarding the grassy knoll, if no one is there, why are technicians trying to clean up this image of the "Badgeman"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. Thanks for the questions
As far as Gen Walker, there's a section about it in the WCR. You can look it up as easily as I.

As far as attempting to clean up the image of the Badgeman: the attempts I referenced have been made by technicians hired by various TV specials dealing with the assassination and have been broadcast. The work has been done at the behest of the people producing the specials. Has the US government done similar work? Don't know, and I can't prove a negative that they haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #87
192. Walker was FIRED by JFK -- Walker also led race riot at Ole Miss --!!!
JFK fired Gen Walker for distributing r-w literature in military --

Arrested at Ole Miss, he was charged with insurrection -- and psychiatry recommended --!!!

Rethink the Walker thing --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
68. So you're saying that LHO missed a stationary target at close range...
But made a "Magical" Shot, from the lunch room err... 6th floor of the TSBT, at a moving target? :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Who knows? Perhaps Oswald was in the habit of missing with his first shot?
Had he stuck around to take shots 2 and 3 at Wallace, he may have got lucky.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
189. The "alleged" rifle was set up for a leftie -- Oswald was right handed ---
Also -- the scope had to be repaired before it could be tested --!!!

Meanwhile, the long-unidentified fingerprint on one of the sniper's nest

cartons was identified as belonging to Malcolm Wallace -- LBJ's personal

murderer.

ALSO note that ...

"Until 12:15 pm ...employee on sixth floor eating his lunch. Sees nobody ----- "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #189
209. Wrong. See my post #156.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
124. The Other Oswalds
Oswald wasn't the only one to defect to the Soviet Union and later return to the United States...



The Other Defector

Oswald's Mother
Essays on the assassination of JFK
Saturday, June 21, 2008

Lee Oswald was not the only man to defect to the Soviet Union in the late 1950s. There were others such as Robert E. Webster. A former navy man, Webster was assigned to set up a trade display for the Rand Corporation in Moscow in October of 1959. For unknown reasons he decided to defect while there, just two weeks before Oswald did. Oddly, when Webster went to the US Embassy in Moscow to defect, Henry Rand, head of the corporation and a top executive, George Bookbinder, accompanied him. Both Rand and Bookbinder served together in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), the forerunner of the CIA. The Rand Corporation did contractual work for the CIA. Like Oswald, Webster went to defect on a Saturday and failed. He was told to return the following Monday when the Embassy was open. Webster had another thing in common with Oswald--he would become disenchanted with life in the Soviet system and return to the Untied States in May of 1962.

It gets stranger. Robert Webster is on the record stating that he never knew or met Oswald while in Russia. Yet Oswald, when preparing to return to the U.S., asked embassy officials about Webster. How did Oswald know about him? Meanwhile, Webster claimed to have met Oswalds wife Marina while there. She on the other hand, denied ever knowing him.

One thing that was very unlike Oswald, however, was Websters return to America. He was thoroughly debriefed by the CIA and Air Force and later spent two weeks with a Senate Internal Security Subcommittee behind closed doors. Contrast that with Oswald going virtually ignored (that we know of) upon his return, being only questioned by the FBI. And this, from a man that offered classified radar secrets to the Soviets.

Another strange item is why the two top men at Rand would accompany Webster to the Embassy. This is the height of the cold war and their employee wants to go commie. And the top people in the company are just going to walk him down there? Thats one issue, but the really odd thing is Webster intended to share a Rand Corporation product, their plastic spray gun, with the Russians. What CEO would approve of this? It is now known that the CIA had a false defector program to get assets into the Soviet Union during this time. So, this may have been an intelligence operation of some sort utilizing Rand as the set-up man, with his company, one of the few allowed to do business in the Soviet Union (also contracted with the CIA), to help put an operation like this in play.

CONTINUED...

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2008/06/other-defecto...



Gee. That wasn't in the Warren Commission Report.

Here's more on the defector program:



Oswald and the CIA Defection Program

John Simkin
Sept. 30, 2006
Education Forum

Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only American who defected to the Soviet Union in the years 1959-60. Others included Joseph Dutkanicz, Vladimir Sloboda, Robert E. Webster, Bruce Frederick Davis, Nicholas Petrulli and Libero Ricciardelli. A CIA SR/6 soft file was set up in 1960 entitled American Defectors to the USSR. John Newman (Oswald and the CIA) discovered a memo from this file that stated that basic information had been extracted for the US Defector Machine Program. It goes on to say: In all instances in which the material was unique, or represented a valuable collation effort, it has been incorporated into the appropriate 201 file, along with a copy of this memorandum.

Libero Ricciardelli, who had served in the US Air Force, defected in August, 1959. He lived in Kiev until returning to the United States in June, 1963.

Robert E. Webster had been working for the Rand Development Corporation as a plastics technician at the American National Exhibition in Moscow, when he disappeared in September, 1959 emerging a month later on Oct. 17 at the U.S. Embassy, where he attempted to renounce his citizenship. Webster returned to the United States in May, 1962.

On Sept. 5, 1959, Nicholas Petrulli of Long Island renounced his American citizenship in Moscow but after being turned down for Soviet citizenship decided to return to the U.S. on Sept. 21.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the next to go in October, 1959. He was followed by Bruce Frederick Davis. After serving 5 years in the U.S. Army, Davis left his post in West Germany and defected to the Soviet Union in August 1960. He lived in Kiev before returning to the United States in July, 1963.

Joseph Dutkanicz and his wife defected in May, 1960. A few days later Vladimir Sloboda and his wife also defected. Both men had a lot in common. As John Newman points out: Both had been in Germany, in the Army, in Military Intelligence Branch, had defected within days of each other, and had been recruited by the KGB prior to their defections.

Sloboda later told an American Embassy official in Moscow that he had been blackmailed and framed in going to the USSR. His wife, who was English, managed to leave the Soviet Union.

Dutkanicz applied to return to the United States. His wife arrived back in America in March, 1962 but the Soviet authorities prevented him from leaving the country and it is reported that he died in November 1963.

For further information on this subject see:

John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (1995)

The Defector Study: Staff Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations U.S. House of Representatives (March 1979)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/j...tor.htm#SL...

AJ Weberman, CIA Reaction to Oswalds Defection

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec5.htm

Peter R. Whitmey, Did Oswald Come Back?

http://www.jfk-info.com/whitmey8.htm

Libero Ricciardelli Papers

http://www.iisg.nl/archives/en/files/r/10885946.php

SOURCE:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8...



Thank you for giving a damn and for the info about Oswald's marksmanship, Uncle Joe.

It got me thinking: In addition to his marksmanship, Oswald was chosen to do battle with his brains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. This was new to me - Both Conally's (Gov. & his wife) both did NOT believe in the single bullet.....
THE POLITICS OF SAD MEMORY: Mega-Moments in Modern American History
PLUS - New Senate, House, and Governor Outlook Summary Charts

Larry J. Sabato
Director, U.Va. Center for Politics

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.ph...

The death of Nellie Connally a few days ago brought back an aching shock and a flood of unhappy memories for Americans about fifty years of age and older. The last survivor of the JFK assassination car in Dallas, Mrs. Connally was the final personified reminder of a day that will live in infamy, November 22, 1963. Even now, it is difficult for most older people to recall that day without experiencing anew the terrible horror of an unthinkable act--and feeling the awful melancholy of what might have been.

By the way, Mrs. Connally was a prominent disbeliever in the single-bullet theory, an essential component of the lone-assassin conclusion of the Warren Commission Report. The single-bullet theory, devised by a Warren Commission staffer named Arlen Specter (now the senior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania) suggested that one bullet inflicted critical wounds on both President Kennedy and Governor John Connally of Texas. In a private conversation at the LBJ Library in the early '90s, Mrs. Connally insisted to me that both she and her husband distinctly heard and reacted to the shot that first injured President Kennedy--and it was not the one that nearly killed Connally. John and Nellie Connally apparently never wavered in reporting that the Governor was struck by a separate bullet than the one that pierced JFK's neck (the one before the fatal head shot). If the Connallys were correct, it would have been impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have acted alone since there was not time for Oswald to shoot both officeholders in the time recorded by the Zapruder film, the only continuous visual evidence of the assassination.

(snip)

To Lyndon Johnson's credit, he was able to harness all that sympathy and guilt to pass the most extensive civil rights agenda since the Civil War, and LBJ's domestic Great Society was as dramatic in many ways as FDR's New Deal. But JFK's killing also began a terrible decade of unintended consequences. Johnson's insecurities and bravado led to America's disastrous involvement in Vietnam, with over 500,000 troops committed and 60,000 American casualties suffered by war's end. Few historians believe that John Kennedy would have been so foolish as to expand the Vietnam conflict to this extent. And would Richard Nixon have staged his successful comeback had Kennedy lived to serve two full terms? Without Nixon, the Watergate scandal would never have happened.

AND this video of Jack Ruby and what he said before he died:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-17723659454330...

..........

It is history that will write the truth in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. "THEY are going to kill us all." "I want THEM to see what THEY did"
The first quote was from Mrs.Connally during the shooting, the other was from Jackie when asked to freshen up her blood-stained clothes for the arrival in Washington. The first can be attributed to panic. Jackies came much later on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. And when you realize the Secret Service "body guards" left the car just before the turn...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/171830/secret_service_jfk /

How can you not wonder what really happen and who was behind it. Who had the power to make that call?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
54. Actually, it was John Connally who screamed
"My God, they are going to kill us all!" Which might(or not) be more significant than if Nellie had said it. I'd expect that John was more apt to be in a position to know whe "they" were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #54
77. Right -- REMEMBER ...LBJ wanted Yarborough to be in that seat ---!!!
And evidently they couldn't control that one and Connolly probably rode

along understanding what was going to happen any moment --

YARBOROUGH was great -- and they hated him ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. I never heard that about Yarborough.
Very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. Yeah .. Yarborough tried to get truth out about Grassy Knoll shots ...
Yarborough noted .. You could smell the gunpowder -- you could see the smoke from

the shots in that location -- and he could see the soldier standing in front of

the fence taking pictures react to the shooting from behind him -- and hitting the

ground.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
138. Gerald Ford's Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up
This article explains why Gov. and Mrs. Connally felt the Magic Bullet theory is bogus.

No magic bullet. No lone nut explanation. That would mean a conspiracy.



Gerald Ford's Role
in the JFK Assassination Cover-up


By Don Fulsom
CrimeMagazine.com

EXCERPT...

The most important eyewitness to the assassination was Gov. Connally. Questioned by Warren Commission counsel and now-U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, Connally's testimony to the Warren Commission solidly supports the Zapruder film:

Mr. Specter: In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?

Gov. Connally: The second one.

Mr. Specter: And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?

Gov. Connally: Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything. It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.

Gov. Connally's vivid memories of those horrific moments never changed. And they fit a more-than-three-bullet scenario. Connally firmly believed different bullets struck him and President Kennedy. In a later interview for a TV program, Connally recalled hearing a rifle shot over his right shoulder "because that's where the sound came from." He said he saw "nothing out of the ordinary," and was in the process of turning to look over his left shoulder "when I felt a blow in the middle of my back as if someone had hit me with a double-fist it bent me over and I immediately saw I was covered with blood and I knew I'd been hit, and I said, Oh my God, they're going to kill us all.'" Connally then heard another shot and said, "I knew that the President had been fatally hit, because I heard Mrs. Kennedy then, I heard her say, My God, I've got his brains in my hands.'"

In a separate comment, Connally said, "There were either two or three people involved, or more, in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."

CONTINUED...

http://www.crimemagazine.com/06/ford-jfk,1111-06.htm



Thank you for the article. A friend of mine is a Virginia grad and agrees: Sabato is a great man.

Thanks also for giving a damn, 1776Forever!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #138
195. Connolly was certainly part of all this ---
nearly as corrupt as LBJ --

Re wounds --

The throat wound -- wound of entry -- had NO exit --
If made by a bullet vs, for instance, a paralyzing dart or ice bullet -- then
probably fell into his chest cavity.

The rear wound was actually in JFK's RIGHT SHOULDER and was made at a
45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE.
That wound also had NO OUTLET --
It was probed by Finck at autopsy more than once -- "No outlet" --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. I keep trying to piece it together. Another try:
We may finally be reaching a turning point on this issue.

Bush phoned the FBI(FBI documented, recently released) with a strange lead while an hours drive from Dallas, 45 minutes after the shots. Bet he had a fast car as president of Zapata oil and secretly a CIA man. Oddly, he cannot remember where he was when he heard the news. Was he driving FROM Dallas? He won't say. He's the only person in America who cannot remember this detail, where he was when he heard the news. (The photo of George Herbert WALKER Bush leaning against the Book Depository might not really be him. Okay. NBD.)

The Walker family had a sugar plantation in Cuba. They wanted it back. THEY STILL DO. The Cubans are happy enough(could be happier), but the Cuban mafia, any mafia, is not happy with Castro. They'd train to become marksmen to kill Castro. Then Kennedy, why not, Kennedy stood in their way to getting Cuba back.

The guys paying the mafia guys did not want JFK pulling OUT of Vietnam. Military money complex. And did not want the CIA being disbanded as JFK threatened. FBI Hoover was visited and threatened to not investigate(document he hid, recently released). Johnson didn't want to die fighting these guys. So, he winked at them, cleaned a few loose ends, and happily lived as president.

There was at the time well funded armaments on Caribbean islands poised against Cuba that Hoover would regularly infiltrate and raid. No one knows who the infiltrator is. Oswald was a guy who went to Russia, returned and still managed to get government jobs AND SECURITY CLEARANCES.

CONJECTURE:

Did Oswald, working for Hoover, try to buddy up to Bush so he'd know the next island Hoover would want to raid. Maybe intended to say he'd shoot Kennedy for Bush, never having the intention to hit the target, maybe having the intention to miss, the intention to be the shooter rather than letting someone else really do it. He took the job a month before, about when a White House might pre-plan a trip.

I must note that before the fatal head shot that I suggest entered above the right eye and blew brain out back, Kennedy was already distressed as though a bullet had entered his neck and stuck. Connelly was turned watching the crowd, then turned further as Kennedy gagged. Hard to say when his arm was hit. Could have been from the front as well.

When that other person did shoot, when the Secret Service did get out of the way, when the car path did change, when his purposely missed shot seemed to hit, he panicked, he was a patsy, he knew it then. He pulled the trigger as the umbrella man signaled, but that signal had signaled Oswald and timed Oswald's shot to the one probably from the grassy knoll so the shots could be confusing. Maybe a couple extra spent shells are dropped by Oswald's gun to make it look like he made three shots.

Bush leaves the scene to make a call from elsewhere and have his location far from Dallas confirmed in an FBI file. He leaves the FBI a false lead to keep them busy until they threaten Hoover making Hoover stop investigating. Hoover complies but documents the visit and places the document in a huge pile of documents that are then hidden from view for 40 years.

Oswald had to die or else his FBI connection would be public, let alone his knowing about the island armories. Ruby could be convinced it would be in his best interest to kill Oswald and Ruby did not know enough to make any really embarrassing statements.

The rest is cleanup. A bullet at the hospital is lost and another found. The body makes a strange journey where it might be prepared or a bullet removed. Pre-warned Johnson stacking the Warren commission with people who are pliable, connected, or just do not want to die. Connelly is buried with the bullet still in his body. No forensics with the famous gun. The limousine is driven by a young Pat Buchanan and all physical evidence it may have contained is destroyed. Extra conspiracy theories are thrown around convincing local law enforcers to look hard, real hard, at certain memories of witnesses, and most important of all creating wild conspiracy theories out of the CIA handbook made to win Central American elections, now meant to discredit and hide any spouting of a conspiracy theory that would be all too accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. OR, you could save a lot of time and fantasy by reading the WCR
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 05:55 PM by stopbush
and Bugliosi's book on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
78. Oswald worked for CIA on high level assignments ...
and probably also for FBI ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. And who better to work on the Caribbean raids.
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 01:36 PM by Festivito
Someone hidden deep inside a compartmentalized CIA, off in a far away Russia for a good while, thus face unknown.

All he had to do was to bide his time and buddy up to the right people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. I'm not sure what you're saying, but Oswald was CIA & a"patsy" ....
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 02:53 PM by defendandprotect
More likely he was directed to give some assistance to bringing down Gary Power's U-2

flight --

Obviously there was a connection which Gary Powers saw immediately --

Powers tells us his flight was sabotaged at this end --

IKE had directed that the U-2 flights be stopped for the months leading up to the

Paris Peace Summit -- he was betrayed --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #88
163. by "he was betrayed " you mean Gary Powers was betrayed.
Or, Ike was betrayed.

Seems there are two competing sides in all this history. A good CIA and a bad CIA.

One wants U2 flights to destroy peace talks, the other wants to destroy a U2 to assure that there will be no more U2 flights before the talks begin.

It's a big game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #163
196. Both IKE and Powers were betrayed ---- at this end ....
CIA was set up using Nazis from PAPERCLIP --
Also filtered into FBI
and NASA head -- Werner Von Braun --
JFK eas catching on --

Rogue CIA -- but CIA always under control of elites --

Obviously, MIC wanted to destroy peace talks --
Gary Powers' flight was used to do so --
Presumably, Oswald, in Russia at that time, played some role or faux role -

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #78
159. Your proof? We're waiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. CIA officer James B. Wilcott so testified to the HSCA.
Ex-CIA man James Wilcott testified to Congress that Oswald was a CIA employee.

Here you go:



JAMES WILCOTT'S TESTIMONY

James B. Wilcott, a former CIA accountant, swore in a secret session of the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he was told by other CIA employees that Lee Harvey Oswald was paid by the CIA, and that money he himself had disbursed was for "Oswald or the Oswald project." The HSCA report indicated that other CIA employees discounted Wilcott's testimony, but none of their statements were included in the report. The document excerpted below was acquired by John Armstrong after his JFK Lancer NID97 presentation. Selected pages from the National Archives are presented graphically; the remainder, to preserve bandwidth, are excerpted typographically. A link to the complete text of Wilcott's testimony is provided near the bottom of this page.


EXECUTIVE SESSION

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1978

House of Representatives,

John F. Kennedy Subcommittee
of the Select Committee on
Assassinations,

Washington, D.C.


<. . . . >

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. WILCOTT, A FORMER EMPLOYEE
OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY:

Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, would you please state your name and address and occupation?

Mr. Wilcott. My name is James B. Wilcott. My address is 2761 Atlantic Street, in Concord, and my occupation is electronic technician.

< . . . . >

Mr. Goldsmith. And, Mr. Wilcott, is it true that you are a former employee with the CIA and that you are here today testifying voluntarily without a subpoena?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. During what years did you work for the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I worked from the years, May, of 1957 to, April, of 1966.

Mr. Goldsmith. And in what general capacity did you work with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. All in the finance--in accounting all of the time.

<. . . .>

Mr. Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?"

Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.

Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination.
Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things in that line.

Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When, exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made this allegation?

Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox?

Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch, the Soviet Russia Branch, Station, who purchased information from the Soviets.

Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case Officers working at the Station in 1963?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did.

<. . . .>

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you discuss it with anyone?

Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. I discussed it with my friends and the people that I was associating with socially.

Mr. Goldsmith. Who were your friends that you discussed this with?

Mr. Wilcott. George Breen, Ed Luck, and .

Mr. Goldsmith. Who was George Breen?

Mr. Wilcott. George Breen was a person in Registry, who was my closest friend while I was in .

Mr. Goldsmith. Was he a CIA employee?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he was.

Mr. Goldsmith. And would he corroborate your observation that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I don't know.

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you learn the name of Oswald's Case Officer at the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. No.

Mr. Goldsmith. Were there any other times during your stay with the CIA at Station that you came across information that Oswald had been a CIA agent?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. When was that?

Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember the name of this Case Officer?

Mr. Wilcott. No, I don't.

Mr Goldsmith. Do you remember when specifically this conversation took place?

Mr. Wilcott. Not specifically, only generally.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many months after the assassination was this?

Mr. Wilcott. I think it must have been two or three omths after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And do you remember were this conversation took place?

Mr. Wilcott. It was right at my window, my disbursing cage window.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you discuss this information with anyone?

Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. With whom?

Mr. Wilcott. Certainly with George Breen, the circle of social friends that we had.

Mr. Goldsmith. How do you spell last name?

Mr. Wilcott. (spelling).

<. . . .>

Mr. Goldsmith. Did this Case Officer tell you what Oswald's cryptonym was?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he mentioned the cryptonym specifically under which the money was drawn.

Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym was?

Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember.

Mr. Goldsmith. What was your response to this revelation as to what Oswald's cryptonym was? Did you write it down or do anything?

Mr. Wilcott. No; I think that I looked through my advance book--and I had a book where the advances on project were run, and I leafed through them, and I must have at least leafed through them to see if what he said was true.

CONTINUED...

SOURCE w TESTIMONY: http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Wilcott/Wilcott.htm



FYI: The House Select Committee found evidence for conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy and recommended to the Justice Department that they re-open the investigation. History shows the incoming Reagan Department of Justice didn't bother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #160
165. Thanks, Octafish. This is a perfect example of CT nuttery.
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 07:43 PM by stopbush
Here's what I derive from the excerpt of the testimony that you posted:

Who was Wilcott? An ACCOUNTANT at the CIA. Not an agent, a bean counter. You call him "a CIA officer." Is an accountant considered an officer? I don't know, I'm asking.

Should we stop there? No? OK, let's proceed:

Did Wilcott know Oswald personally? No.

When did he FIRST hear that Oswald was CIA? The DAY AFTER the assassination.

Who were the specific people who told him this info? Can't remember.

What was the name of the case officer who needed money for "Project Oswald?" Can't remember.

When specifically did the conversation take place with the case officer? Can't remember.

Did the case officer tell Wilcott Oswald's CIA code name? Yes.

What was the code name? Can't remember.

Yep, Octafish, compelling and revealing evidence for sure! An accountant who worked at the CIA heard that Oswald was CIA, heard it the day AFTER the assassination from multiple sources, can't remember any of their names, can't remember the specific time he heard the rumous, etc, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #165
167. I underestand that Vince's "evidence" only works
if certain witnesses are discredited (ie, Parkland medical team)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #167
169. Read the book, then get back to me. Speculating is a waste of your time and mine.
BTW - you're also wrong about the Parkland medical team. I leave it to you to educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #169
172. Using cherry-picked "evidence" is what's counter-productive. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #172
173. Who's cherry picking? Those of us debunking the CT myths are doing so one myth
at a time as they make yet another unwelcome appearance in this thread. In fact, the debunkers are batting 1000 on the debunks they have the time to handle in this thread.

But you are correct - one can cherry pick the WCR, but after awhile, you end up with a whole bushel of cherries called "overwhelming evidence."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #169
177. I've read the abbreviated version.
It's the Warren Commission Report itself that has helped fuel Conspiracy Theories. Bugliosi's book will have the same effect but to a much lesser scale.

I would love to read his rehash of the Warren Commission's Report someday when I have the time. I do applaud and respect Bugliosi for his expose on the 2000 selection. I also keep an open mind on this matter and would love to be convinced that Oswald shot JFK all by his lonesome self and without any help or prior discussion with anyone. In the meantime here is a good read:

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

snip: "...According to Bugliosi there is...

a mountain of evidence conclusively proving that Oswald shot Kennedy, (p. 832)

and he invokes this assertion whenever he needs an excuse to dismiss evidence to the contrary. The fact is the totality of the evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy amounts to little more than the proverbial molehill. The eyewitness testimony, for what it was worth, indicated that someone other than Oswald did the shooting. In this regard, one of the more shameful aspects of the Warren Commission investigation was its handling of the African-American witnesses..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. You are correct that the WCR itself has helped to fuel the CTs.
Edited on Sat Nov-29-08 12:07 PM by stopbush
At the time of the shooting, most Americans believed it was a conspiracy. LBJ believed the Russians did it. But that doesn't mean the WC got it wrong.

As far as eyewitness testimony - that's always the most unreliable evidence around, for just about any case you wish to discuss. I'll take physical, forensic evidence over eyewitness accounts every time.

The totality of the evidence IS overwhelming that Oswald did it.

Look, I know what you're going through. I firmly believed the JFK CTs until only a few years ago, and I'm 54 years old. It was my CAREFUL re-reading of the evidence as presented in the WCR and Reclaiming History that have convinced me. And I must strongly disagree with your implication that Bugliosi trots out a simple blanket statement to brush away CTs. On the contrary, he dismantles each one in depth.

The truth is out there, and it's so simple and clear that it's hard to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #179
187. Well, they did refuse testimony that opposed their conclusion
One that is particularly troubling is the Commission's failure to get a statement from Kennedy's personal physician who was present at both Parkland Hospital in Dallas and at the controversial autopsy at Bethesda (the one that took place after they illegally took the body out of Texas)

The autopsy photos themselves do not reflect the eyewitness and medical testimony and the Zapruder film of the fatal head wound. The only photo that does is F8, which shows a huge crater on the side/top of his head and virtually no brain tissue. And F8 contradicts other autopsy photos. It's just a mess.
And these type of inconstancies are just all over the place. Some of it is so incredible that I wonder if they were TRYING to suggest a conspiracy even if there wasn't one.(possibly the intent, in order to provoke an attack against Cuba ala Operation Northwoods)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #167
198. Yeah, Parkland doctors were just fakers -- knew nothing about gun wounds --
or a large hole in right rear of JFK's head ...!!

JFK AUTOPSY:---

"Finck: "Looks like half his brain is gone.

Who's in charge here? Admiral Kinney?"



ALSO --

"Until 12:15 ...employee on 6th floor eating his lunch. Sees nobody---"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #160
197. Many CIA employees came forward to say Oswald was CIA ---
until they were harassed -- threatened fatally --

There's also the CIA letter to the Secret Service at time of assassination

confirming Oswald was CIA -- trained for spying in Russia --

And Tunnheim Panel confirmation ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
181. Dallas
Agree with your analysis, Festivito. Cuba was set up to blame for the assassination of President Kennedy. Once an "honest" investigation was conducted, the trail was clear as footprints in fresh-fallen snow back to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City and from there to the Soviet Embassy.

The United States ultra-right-wing-nutjob class wanted to end communism, once and for all and Dallas gave them the "perfect" or "ideal" rationale for war.

The thing is, LBJ, crooked and ambitious or whatever, didn't accede to their idea for war and possibly the nuclear option. As JFK hadn't at the Bay of Pigs, or the Cuban missile crisis, or Vietnam.

Fascinated by elements of your conjecture, my Friend. I do know the connection between Oswald and Poppy Bush goes by way of George de Mohrenschildt.

Here are my observations:

No SS protection of President in motorcade.
Phony SS on the knoll reported by eyewitnesses, including several police officers.
The cover up afterward.
The media manipulation that continues to the present day.
The rise of the right-wing.

Thank you very much for putting your thoughts down, Festivito. Your standing up to these fascist bastards is very much appreciated by me and everyone else who gives a damn about the assassination of President Kennedy and the current state of our nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. Sometimes I just want to SHAKE people
Suck it up and deal with reality. He was murdered and we have a right to know who killed our democracy and our President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
133. ''It's 'Fair Play for Cuba Committee.' Not 'Free Cuba Committee'.''
One of the most intriguing episodes -- proof of conspiracy to me -- is Jack Ruby's correction at Oswald's "midnight press conference." Dallas District Attorney Wade mentioned Oswald's membership in the "Free Cuba Committee." Posing as a newsman, Ruby immediately corrected Wade and stated Oswald was a member of the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee." The difference is the former is anti- and the latter pro-Castro organization.



Here's why, IMFO, Ruby knew so much about the subject:



Gunrunner Ruby and the CIA

by Lisa Pease

It's not as if they didn't know. Assistant counsels to the Warren Commission Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert wrote, in a memo to the Warren Commission members dated March 20, 1964, that "the most promising links between Jack Ruby and the assassination of President Kennedy are established through underworld figures and anti-Castro Cubans, and extreme right-wing Americans." 1 Two months later, Griffin and Hubert wrote another memo to the Commission, significantly titled "Adequacy of the Ruby Investigation" in which they warned, "We believe that a reasonable possibility exists that Ruby has maintained a close interest in Cuban affairs to the extent necessary to participate in gun sales or smuggling."
    "They're going to find out about Cuba.
    They're going to find out about the guns,
    find out about New Orleans,
    find out about everything."


Ruby had talked about it himself while in jail, reportedly telling a friend, "They're going to find out about Cuba. They're going to find out about the guns, find out about New Orleans, find out about everything." 2 Tales of Ruby running guns to Cuba abounded in the FBI reports taken in the first weeks after the assassination, yet neither the Warren Commission nor the House Select Committee pursued those leads very far. Griffin and Hubert expressed concern over this, saying that "neither Oswald's Cuban interests in Dallas nor Ruby's Cuban activities have been adequately explored." 3

If They Dared

Hubert and Griffin expressed in their memo of May 14 to Rankin that "we believe that the possibility exists, based on evidence already available, that Ruby was involved in illegal dealings with Cuban elements who might have had contact with Oswald. The existence of such dealings can only be surmised since the present investigation has not focused on that area." 4 They expressed concern that "Ruby had time to engage in susbtantial activities in addition to the management of his Clubs" and that "Ruby has always been a person who looked for money-making 'sidelines'." They even suggested that since the Fort Worth manufacturer of the famous "Twist Board" Ruby was demonstrating the night after the assassination had no known sales, and was manufactured by an oil field equipment company, that "he possibility remains that the 'twist board' was a front for some other illegal enterprise." But what Griffin and Hubert kept coming back to is that there was "much evidence" that Ruby "was interested in Cuban matters, citing his relationship to Louis McWillie; his attempted sale of jeeps to Castro, his reported attendance of meetings "in connection with the sale of arms to Cubans and the smuggling out of refugees"; and Ruby's quick correction of Wade's remark that Oswald was a member of the Free Cuba Committee, a group populated with such notables as Clare Booth Luce, Admiral Arleigh Burke, and Hal Hendrix. "Bits of evidence link Ruby to others who may have been interested in Cuban affairs."

What was their recommendation, based on such tantalizing evidence? "We suggest that these matters cannot be left 'hanging in the air.' They must either be explored further or a firm decision must be made not to do so supported by stated reasons for the decision." History has given us the commission's decision on this, but a clue to the motivation shows up in this same memo, in regards to Seth Kantor, who claimed to have seen Ruby at Parkland hospital around the time of Kennedy's death. "We must decide who is telling the truth, for there would be considerable significance if it would be concluded that Ruby is lying." The concern was not what the truth was, but what the truth might mean if it was uncomfortably discovered.

Ruby was lying, and the implications are enormous.

CONTINUED...

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



To save time and space: The lone-nut crowd will state that a radio broadcast the afternoon of the assassination made clear Oswald's membership in the FPCC. Yeah. Like every station in town emphasized that nugget of information until the entire population -- Ruby included heard the news.

Thank you for giving a damn, upi402. The nation needs more patriots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. Kicking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
175. The JFK Assassination - Responses to a Student's Questions
In addition to his work as a researcher on the assassination of President Kennedy, Prof. Proctor is also is Dean of Northwood University. The guy puts out what is known -- the truth.



The JFK Assassination - A Reply to Students' Questions

Dr. Grover B. Proctor, Jr.

From time to time, people find my articles in print or here on these Web pages, and they write me to tell me their latest theory, to inquire about my writings, or to take me to task for not agreeing with their obviously superior conclusions. As time (and the merit of the thoughts expressed) permits, I try to reply to these notes when I can.

However, the e-mails I value most are those from students who have just discovered the mysteries and contradictions and conundrums of the JFK Assassination. Their enthusiasm and sense of determined inquiry not only inspire me but also remind me of myself when I first began to read about the case. Almost always these notes take the form of requests for more information to aid them in some sort of school project or paper. And this gladdens me all the more, because it shows that teachers are allowing (and in some cases encouraging) students to explore all aspects of recent American history, not just the "official" versions.

In 1998 I had just such a request from a student in Texas, and because the questions were so well thought out and demonstrated a good fundamental grasp of the major issues of the case, I decided that (in addition to answering it by e-mail) I would reproduce the answers here. Perhaps (to the extent that my research, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations for further research are valuable) it will prove helpful to others who have the same questions. In the intervening time, a few other quality questions have come to me, and I have added them (and my answers to them) here as well.

SNIP...

Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin? If not, who else do you think was involved?

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was not the lone assassin. (See the questions below on the source and number of the shots.) In fact, there is evidence that he was not even one of the assassins. Tests tended to show that he had not fired a rifle that day, and there is eye-witness testimony that places him several floors below the "sniper's lair" both just before and just after the assassination. See Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment for many more details. In that book, Lane acts as a "defense counsel" for Oswald, showing in great detail the evidence that tends to point away from Oswald's guilt -- or at least his sole guilt.


Do you agree with the conclusions of the Warren Commission? If not, explain.

I do not agree with either the procedures or the conclusions of the Warren Commission. For whatever reason (and they may have been reasons that some would consider good ones, like national security), they seem to have started with the idea that Oswald was guilty and forced everything in their research and report to reflect that fact. Mark Lane admitted up front he was writing a book that would be a legal brief for Oswald; the Commission never admitted it (in fact, it presented itself as an impartial fact-finding board) but they seemed equally biased, only against Oswald.


SNIP...

Do you believe there is any connection between the death of President Kennedy and the death of his brother Robert Kennedy?

This depends on what you mean by "connection." Were both assassinations events that shattered the feelings and hopes of many Americans? Yes. Were both assassinations politically motivated? Yes. Did both assassinations take from us visionaries who had the ability to inspire and motivate people even who did not agree with them on social or political issues? Yes. So in these ways, the events are "connected." However, if you are asking me if somehow the same people were responsible, then I couldn't possibly say. Among other reasons, I have not investigated the death of Robert Kennedy to any depth. And more to the point, I have no definitive knowledge as to who specifically planned or carried out the assassination of John Kennedy (though I have my own private theories concerning to whom the evidence points), so there is no way to make any such "connection."

CONTINUED...

http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk98.html



Thanks for giving a damn, Hotler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
24. Oswald was killed that Sunday. Game over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. um . . . the best FBI marksmen couldn't duplicate the number and accuracy . . .
of Oswald's shots at a moving target . . . or even at a stationary target . . . simply couldn't get off three shots with that weapon in that short a time and have them come anywhere near their target . . .

btw, the House Assassinations Committee concluded that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill Kennedy . . . unfortunately, that's as far as they took it . . .

finally, I saw an interview with a professional assassin who had done a number of killings in his time . . . he said that, based on the way the blood and tissue flew, the shot that killed Kennedy absolutely came from the front . . . when asked how he knew that, he said something like "first-hand experience" . . .

Oswald may or may not have been a participant in the assassination . . . if he was a shooter, he sure as hell wasn't the only one . . . or the one who fired the fatal shot . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I have looked out that window several times. Easy shot.
You could have hit him with a bb gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Yep. IIRC, JFK was 88 yards away when Oswald fired the head shot.
Well within the range of a former Marine who achieved the rank of sharpshooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. Or anyone who is decent at throwing rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. You're wrong. The WC tests had shooters BETTERING Oswald's results
CRAIG ZIRBEL AND THE WARREN COMMISSION SHOOTING TESTS

A textbook example of how to mangle evidence to support
conspiracy conclusions is found in Craig Zirbel's THE TEXAS
CONNECTION.

Below is the passage where Zirbel describes the Warren
Commission's shooting tests with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle.

Below Zirbel, we have included the Warren Commission
testimony that he is describing. Note the contrast.


> While the Commission went to desperate lengths to "prove
>that Oswald killed Kennedy with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle"
>it in fact proved the contrary. On November 27, 1963 the
>F.B.I. conducted the initial series of rifle tests with the
>alleged assassination weapon. As part of the tests the
>F.B.I.determined that because Kennedy was moving away in the
>limousine Oswald had at most 5.6 seconds to fire the three
>shots that allegedly killed him. This time range conclusion
>was based on observations from Oswald's alleged vantage point
>on the southwest corner of the 6th floor in the Texas School
>Book Depository in comparison to films and photographs of the
>murder. It was established that Oswald's vision of the target
>was blocked for a time by a large tree. As a result, while
<the motorcade did travel for almost a full block on Elm
>Street in front of Oswald, from Oswald's postion it was
>agreed that he had less than 6 full seconds to fire the three
>shots at the target when it was in view.


In fact, the Warren Commission never said that Oswald
had only 6 seconds to get off three shots.
This is a convenient
misrepresentation by conspiracy authors. The Warren Commission's
actual discussion of this issue is at WCR, p. 117.

Most people today who believe that Oswald did the shooting
by himself believe that he made the first shot at about Zapruder
frame 160, giving him about 8.4 seconds to get off all three
shots.



>To prove that this
>was possible and that Oswald was the lone assassin, the
>F.B.I. started out by having three master marksmen using
>Oswald's rifle rapidly fire a series of 3 shots at stationary
>targets located only 45 feet away. The three experts each
>fired 3 shots within 9 seconds, 8 seconds and 6 seconds,
>respectively. In this test none of the marksmen were
>physically capable of firing the three rounds within the 5.6
>second requirement. Also, not surprisingly, all of the
>marksmen's shots were high and to the right, missing the
>stationary targets located only 45 feet away.


In fact, all the shots *hit* the targets!

These targets are Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.


> Because these tests did not support the lone assassin
>conclusion, the F.B.I. was required to conduct another test
>on March 16, 1964. However, on this occasion only the best of
>the three original marksmen was used (Robert Frazier with a
>previous best time of 6 seconds). In this test Frazier was
>required to fire a series of 3 shots at a stationary target
>300 feet away. On this occasion Frazier's times for each of
>the 3 shot test series were 5.9 seconds, 6.2 seconds, and 6.5
>seconds. Again, the expert failed to match Oswald's alleged
>time of 5.6 seconds, and again all of the shots were high and
>to the right of the intended target. Thus, "the best of the
>best" marksmen still could not help the Commission support
>the lone assassin theory.

Actually, there were *four* series of shots by Frazier.

The times were 5.9 seconds, 6.2 seconds, 5.6 seconds, and 6.5
seconds.

Zirbel *left out* Frazier's best series, the one with a 5.6
second time.


And all of Frazier's shots *hit* the targets. They were "high
and to the right of the *aiming point.* Zirbel (above) says
there were "high and to the right" of the target.

These targets are Commission Exhibits 551, 552, 553, and 554.



> Not giving up, on March 27, 1964 a third test was
>arranged. This test was conducted by the U.S. Army Ballistic
>Research Laboratory using three new marksmen again firing at
>stationary targets. Again, only one of the three experts was
>capable of firing three shots close to the required time
>limit. However, continuing its effots to "prove" the
>impossible was possible, the Commission allowed the new
>marksmen to use a gun rest, and to take as much time as they
>needed to line up their first shot at the stationary target
> ;(which Oswald could not do because the Kennedy limousine was
>emerging from trees). But even with these altered test
>conditions the marksmen again failed.


The shooters had a gun rest, and so did Oswald.

Zirbel says that Oswald would not have had an opportunity to
take his time lining up the first shot, since he didn't shoot
(Zirbel says) until Kennedy emerged from behind the tree.

Again, this is a convenient assumption if you want to believe
Oswald's shooting to be "impossible," but doesn't address a
scenario where he fired the first shot at about Z-160.

Now, Zirbel's outrageous misrepresentations:

First, Zirbel says that one of the shooters was "close to the
required time" -- implying that even that shooter failed to make
the shots in 5.6 seconds. In fact, Specialist Miller made the
shots in 4.6 seconds and 5.15 seconds. (He also completed a
series of 3 shoots with iron sights in 4.45 seconds.)


Note that *both* series from *every* shooter was done in less
that the 8.4 seconds that Oswald probably had.


Second: Zirbel says the "marksmen again failed," implying that
like the FBI shooters (whom Zirbel has misrepresented) that they
failed to hit the target.

Out of 18 shots (three targets time three shooters times two
trials each) 13 SHOTS HIT THE TARGET -- a human head-and-shoulders
silhouette.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
96. You and Gerald Posner are dead wrong
and how long have you been working for the govt.? You obviously want to push their propaganda. Or is it in the interest of national security? LOL!!! Your name does not fool anyone. We know your agenda. LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #96
117. I'v been a DU poster since the beginning.
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 11:53 PM by stopbush
Pre-2000 election, to be exact.

You're a nube who needs to explore this site a bit to learn that not everyone here is an ill-informed, fearful, paranoid nutcase. Most important, you need to MAKE A DONATION TO DU before attacking DU's old guard.

I suggest a minimum of $50.

I'll next respond to you whence I see a star next to your moniker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #117
145. Wow! I must have hit a nerve.
Way to change the subject. Just because you donate and have more posts does not make you any better than anyone else on these boards. You have no idea how long I have been reading this site and you do not know my financial situation. You are still dead wrong on this subject and I think you are the ill-informed paranoid nutcase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. Actually several FBI marksman easily duplicated the shots using Oswald's rifle.
They were more accurate and quicker from a further distance after one practice round.

As for your unnamed assassin, I'll cite dozens of unnamed forensics experts who duplicated the blood and tissue spray from a rear shot, as well as the dozens of forensics experts who say that the shot had to come from behind.

Oh yeah, using common sense, where did Connally's wounds come from? He sat in front of Kennedy, and most of his wounds were below the edge of the car and behind the front seat. For him to have received those wounds, someone would have had to shoot him from the floorboard of the car, or else have shot him from behind. Since Kennedy was behind him, the bullets would have had to pass through Kennedy to hit Connally. Oh wait, that's exactly what the evidence shows happened.

You insult Kennedy and everyone touched by him when you try to exonerate his killer. Oswald did it. He acted alone. The evidence is conclusive beyond any real doubt, barring lies about FBI marksmen who couldn't duplicate the shots, or other such nonsense. Oswald did it. Stop trying to exonerate the murderer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Thanks for your post. The CTers wish we'd just go away,
but there's nothing worse or more dogged than a FORMER CTer...like myself!

Ah, my JFK CT days, when Oliver Stone's word was god, when myth was fact and when the laws of physics and the rules of logic were suspended. Those were the days!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #41
55.  Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. Here's my response to Craig Roberts' "Kill Zone":
I LOVE this whopper of a LIE from Roberts:

"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
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Good point. Roberts would have made a stronger case against tMBT
if he had pointed out how LHO's skills had eroded after his intensive Boot Camp Training.

Of course this is predictable with Oswald moving away from military training and exclusively into intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Cue the theme music from The Twilight Zone.
No, Roberts was unable to make a "better" case because he chose to distort Oswald's record to support his pre-conceived CT. Had he elected to admit from the get-go that Oswald attained the rank of sharpshooter, he wouldn't have had a premise for his book, would he? After all, the point of his book is that Oswald was a poor shot who we are to believe pulled off 3 shots that an expert sniper doesn't believe he could have made. That false premise loses its luster when the truth is told that Oswald was almost as good a shot as Mr Sniper.

As far as Oswald's skills "eroding," the USMC was not ready to make such a statement to the WC. Oh, I forgot...they were all in on the plot as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
98. BS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #39
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #94
128. Whatever. The autopsy photos are pretty clear.
You can see the bullet holes, you can see where it passed through. You don't need Gerald Ford to illustrate that. It's not like all the forensics experts and historians haven't heard all these nonsense theories. Go back to the evidence, look at the photos, look at Zapruder to see how Kennedy was sitting, how he slumps (he has that James Cromwell hunch in his neck). There is no question about the bullet's path, using actual evidence instead of fundamentalist logic.

Also, ask yourself a simple question. If a rifle bullet had entered his back right there, where would it have come out? There was not enough bone to stop it in the body. It had to pass through. Where did it come out? Only one wound on the front, so there's your answer.

Also, if you think a bullet hit him from the front (that would be a real magic bullet, zigzagging through windshields and around passengers to hit Kennedy), where did it come out? No rifle bullet would be stopped by a throat. Find an exit wound on the back of Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #128
188. Correction Only one is clear: F8
And it's the only one that I know of that shows what everyone there and the Zapruder film describe: *"They shot his brains out" and about a good portion of his skull was missing.

There is sworn testimony and visual clues that suggest the autopsy photos were manipulated to match up with the official story.

*Jackie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #188
204. Right, its even clear from the Zapruder film...

in frame 323 that his head is blown apart. The "autopsy" must have somehow reconstructed the skull and pulled his scalp back over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #128
199. Bullet hole in back had NO OUTLET -- probed by Finck at autopsy --!!!
The rear wound was in JFK's RIGHT SHOULDER at a 45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE --

It had no exit as conformed by Finck --

As for any autopsy photos that doesn't sjow the large exit wound in right

rear of JFK's head as dscribed by all Parkland doctors and staff ...


JFK AUTOPSY:---

"Finck: "Looks like half his brain is gone.

Who's in charge here? Admiral Kinney?"



ALSO --

"Until 12:15 ...employee on 6th floor eating his lunch. Sees nobody---"

Wake up or move on --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #128
205. Some of us operate from the theory that the Warren Commission was a sham...

does that make us conspiracy nuts? Not when Richard Nixon even admits that it was, on one of his White House tapes no less. That makes it all the more likely that evidence could have been doctored. Also, if the CIA was involved, you know that they are experts at counterintelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #205
211. You're grossly misrepresenting what Nixon said on the WH tape.
Go back and read/listen to the whole thing in context. He doesn't say in any respect that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

And I say that as one who was never a fan of Nixon. He was bad enough with the crap he really did. Why make up shit about what he said about the JFK shooting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #211
212. Even Gerald Ford admitted that the CIA was involved...

in covering something up with respect to the investigation. You can only deny reality so long before it becomes painfully obvious that the Warren Commission and Bugliosi's whitewash of it are sorely lacking. I'm afraid you are fighting a losing battle as more and more people come around, no matter how often you feel it necessary to repeat the same thing over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
113. You do not stand alone with your beliefs
but almost, you are among the 13%( and this is an old poll, you believers are dwindling)who believe Oswald acted alone. LOL!!!

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ The vast majority of Americans believe the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, one of the most infamous events in American history, was a conspiracy. A Gallup poll from March of this year shows that over 8 in 10 Americans (81%) believe that other people were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Only 13% of the public believes that just one man (Lee Harvey Oswald) acted alone. These recent results match the high point of those believing in a conspiracy, a percentage that has increased since the 1960s.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1813/Most-Americans-Believe-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #113
129. I was also with the 13% who opposed the invasion of Iraq and who never approved of Bush.
I'm used to being in the minority elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. 
It's always amusing when CTers bring out the "I'm in the majority" defense. It's the old argument from authority position. If everyone believes it, it must be so!

At one time, everybody KNEW that the world was flat. At one time, everybody KNEW that being sick or having a terrible accident meant that god(s) was displeased with you.

And - as you point out - 90% of the country believed gwb's lies about WMD in Iraq.

But what's amusing is that the JFK CT crowd thinks that they're privy to secret, ground-shaking "evidence" about the JFK assassination that the majority of Americans aren't aware of, while at the same time, it's the majority of uninformed Americans who are using the same "secret" information about the assassination to put themselves in that paranoid majority.

It's like the Christianistas complaining that the USA is going to hell in a hand basket because of the secular humanists while 85% of the populace identifies themselves as Christians.

Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #131
147. If the Bush Administration lied about WMDs in Iraq, wouldn't that be conspiracy?
If someone didn't believe Bush and his administration when they spoke those lies, would they have been paranoid conspiracy theorists?

And if the President and who knows how many in his administration lied about the cause for going to war, what makes you so certain a commission wouldn't cover up, ignore or just miss facts regarding an assassination?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #147
154. Yes, the evidence shows that bush and his minions conspired to lie us into a
war in Iraq. Chief among these conspirators was Colin Powell who knowingly spread disinformation at the UN.

But that's all been revealed at this point, hasn't it? It's been admitted to by bush and his cabal, even though they claim it was the intelligence services who led them astray. The Downing Street Memo pretty much put the nail in their coffin.

I don't see how this situation relates to the JFK assassination.

As I've said, there are conspiracies, but not every ill deed or assassination is conspiracy based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #155
162. A fascinating read.
These commissions seem to be a modern phenomena, maybe I've forgotten something from my history but I don't recall any commission studying or being the ultimate authority to the three previous Presidential Assassinations; Lincoln, Garfield or McKinley.

I'm curious if anyone out there knows when the first commission came in to being to "study" a meta-event?

Maybe this is the price of empire as the government becomes increasingly disconnected from "we the people?" I believe this in turn makes the government more fearful and fragile, so everything becomes a secret, or complex manipulation corrupted by power. Personally I believe the ludicrous "War on inanimate objects" is one such manipulation.

I recall during the selection recount of 2000, corporate media puppet pundits pleading the case of time is of the essence and our society can't handle the stress or pressure of the wait, an arbitrary deadline date was more important. Determining the people's intent became a non-event. Finally after our "corporate media fourth estate free press guardian watchdogs for democracy" were to release their study which for the most part showed Al Gore winning...9/11 happened. That was cosmic timing as one meta event took the oxygen away from another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #155
170. Don't tell me you believe 9/11 was a US/bush-bred conspiracy as well.
Now, you're scaring me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #170
200. Don't tell me you DON"T believe 9/11 was a US/bush-bred conspiracy as well.
You have a lot of waking up to do ---



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #200
210. No, I don't believe it.
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 12:52 PM by stopbush
At worst, bushco ignored indications that something was on the way. In this, they were criminally negligent. But MIHOP/ LIHOP? Give me a break. I hate bushco, but let's not give them credit for being able to pull off such a massive scheme and cover-up when they've proved themselves to be nothing but incompetent in everything else over the past 8 years.

Think what you're saying - bushco couldn't get the simplest aspects of running the country straight, yet they're capable of pulling off 9/11. Right!

And, again, all of the 9/11 CTs stand in direct contradiction to the evidence. Even the paranoids who made the Loose Change vid had to back off some of their earlier fantasies when the evidence proved them to be irrefutably loony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #129
146. 13% who opposed the invasion of Iraq and who never approved of Bush?
Where in the hell did you get that stat? Very interesting, WCR backers consider themselves elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
81. Rifle had to be "repaired" BEFORE it could be tested ---
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 12:10 PM by defendandprotect
The scope on the rifle was undone on one side --

Scope had to be repaired in order to even be tested --

And there's NO chain-of-evidence for the rifle --

and a number of them were found on 6th floor, it seems.

Rifle did NOT have Oswald's prints when originally tested by FBI --





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #81
134. No it didn't. And forensics experts say that only 10% of weapons fired have fingerprints.
The rifle's scope was cantered, but that had nothing to do with whether the rifle could be fired three times in eight seconds, or even six seconds.

You wouldn't need a scope from that distance, anyway. It's as straight and clear a shot as any sniper would ever get. Considering that the first shot missed anything, maybe the scope WAS cantered before Oswald crammed it behind the boxes. Maybe Oswald fired, realized the scope was off, and used the sights for the next two shots.

Anyway it goes, the shots were easily duplicated in tests, and the scope has nothing to do with the debunked claim that the rifle couldn't fire shots that quickly. One of my favorite clips is of an Oswald-exonerator claiming the bolt of the rifle couldn't be cycled faster than whatever his pet theory was, and while talking he is cycling the bolt, and does it faster than he claims it can physically be cycled. Hillarious, and typical, fundamentalism.

As for fingerprints, it's very rare, despite what Horatio Caine or Gus Grissolm might tell you, to find fingerprints on a fired rifle. Experts claim that around 10% of the guns they check have identifiable fingerprints, due to the texture of weapons, the way they are handled (tend to smudge prints), etc. Given the techniques in 63, the odds were probably much lower.

And the chain of evidence is intact, there was only rifle found, etc, etc. The Freeper-esque arguments otherwise from the Oswald-exonerators have all been debunked--using evidence instead of fundamentalist arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. Thanks again for debunking these oft-stated myths of the CT crowd.
This guy sounds like he's reading from Oliver Stone's JFK script.

And, you're correct about the siting of the shots. LHO had the option of using the scope or the iron sites to aim his shots, which is why the tests for the WCR involved using BOTH methods. In all cases, the accuracy and quickness of Oswald's 3 shots were not only matched, they were bettered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #134
151. Oh, now Oswald was so good he didn't even need a scope --!!!!
"Cantered" ...????

canter (kān'tər) Pronunciation Key
n. A smooth gait, especially of a horse, that is slower than a gallop but faster than a trot.
v. cantered, cantering, canters

v. intr.

To ride a horse at a canter.
To go or move at a canter.



And, again, you're way wrong ...

"Military experts stated the rifle required the placement of

three metal shims to make the rifle accurate with the sight --

AND that the rifle had been ADAPTED for a left-handed person.

Oswald, according to his mother and his brother, was right-handed."



There are many questions re the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle beginning with its make and model.

Even CIA documents questioned the accuracy of its identification"


Repaired BEFORE tested ... as I said.

AND according to FBI -- NO FINGERPRINTS ... WHEN FOUND.

"Oswald's palm print reportedly found by a Dallas policeman on the underside of

the dismantled rifle barrel has no chain of evidence and would not have been

permitted in a court of law. Further, it can be shown thee incriminating palm print

was likely made at the Miller Funeral Home by placing the dead Oswald's hand on the rifle."


























Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. What is your source for the claim that Oswald's rifle was "adapted for a
left-handed person?" Who were the"military experts" who made such a claim?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #152
156. Since defendandprotect hasn't bothered providing a source for his claim that Oswald's rifle
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 12:49 PM by stopbush
was "adapted for a left-handed person," let me provide the conclusions from the House Select Committee on Assassinations from the Committee's report on the firearms issues, Volume 7:

"Background:

(22) In "They've Killed the President," Robert Sam Anson contends that the telescopic sight on the Mannlicher-Carcanno rifle was mounted for a left-handed person. (63) Since Oswald is right-handed, it is doubtful that he could have fired the shots in the requisite amount of time. (64)

Conclusion:

(158) There is no such thing as a left- or right-handed telescopic sight.. The location of a telescopic sight on a rifle is determined not by whether it is to be shot left-handed or right-handed, but rather by such factors as receiver design, cartridge case ejection direction and bolt handle travel pattern. On CE 139, the telescopic sight is mounted on the left side of the receiver because of the vertical bolt handle travel pattern and the split receiver. Because this rifle has a right-handed action, a telescopic sight cannot be mounted on the right side of the receiver.

(159) The position of the bolt in a bolt-action rifle, that is, right-or left-handed action, is the factor that influences ease of the operation, rather than the placement of the telescopic sight. A left-handed action would be difficult for a right-handed individual to operate, and conversely, a right-handed action would be difficult for a left-handed individual to operate. (emphasis added)"


So, the BOLT of Oswald's MC rifle was on the RIGHT SIDE of the weapon. The telescopic sight was mounted towards the left side of the weapon because it COULD NOT BE MOUNTED on the right side. Oswald was right-handed. He used his RIGHT HAND to operate the RIGHT HAND-MOUNTED BOLT and to pull the trigger. He used his left hand to grasp the barrel of the rifle.

That's the EVIDENCE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. Another JFK CT myth busted.
:tinfoilhat:

Still awaiting a response.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #152
201. It's common knowledge rifle had to be repaired before tested ...
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 01:28 AM by defendandprotect
it's discussed/reported in reports on rifle --

One source would be Jim Marrs/"Crossfire" -- check it next time you're

in a book store

Keep in mind this is all info around -- simply NOT reported to public

by our "press" --


Also this rifle barely worked --

If I recall correctly, it was feared because erratic --and think they also

highly serviced it before the tests -- smoothing it out --

Meanwhile, there is NO chain-of-evidence for the alleged rifle --




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #201
207. More statements that stand in contradiction to the evidence.
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 12:38 PM by stopbush
And you are SO wrong about the rifle being adapted for a left-handed shooter. I dealt with this MYTH at length in my post #156 in this thread.

Please stop with this nonsense. It's embarrassing for you and for DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
182. Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict JFK's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy.
It's no game. And it's still going on.



How the Failure To Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins
Has Led To Today's Crisis Of Democracy


BY JOAN MELLEN
January 24, 2006
Lecture Delivered at the Ethical Culture Society, New York City

Hear this Speech: http://nysoundposse.com/2006/01/event-who-planned-murde...

The last time I was in this room was for the memorial service of a distinguished American author, J. Anthony Lukas, who wrote Common Ground, about race and class in Boston. During the course of his career, Tony came into conflict with an institution that I will discuss this evening, The New York Times.

A Farewell To Justice is about the Kennedy assassination. It opens as a biography of Jim Garrison, district attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, who remains the only public official ever to have brought anyone before the bar of justice for participation in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Garrison assumed that role when he discovered that the person framed for the crime, a low-level intelligence agent named Lee Harvey Oswald, resided in his jurisdiction between April and September of 1963. The Biblical metaphor is inevitable: that great harlot city New Orleans, destroyed by flood, with, among its many sins, incubating the Kennedy assassination.

After his suspect Clay Shaw was acquitted, Shaw the man whom the new evidence reveals was a CIA operative guilty of participating in the implementation of the murder of President Kennedy, Garrison was asked how he imagined that he could convict someone of conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy in a Louisiana state court. Garrison said: I guess I thought I was living in the country I was born in. He wasn't and we aren't.

I would like to suggest that the truth about the Kennedy assassination, far from being a matter of interest only to historians, and not even to most of them, will help us understand how we have arrived at a point where people as respectable as New York attorney Martin Garbus are comparing the current U.S. government with the rise of fascism in the mid-twentieth century. It's my belief that the present state of our political culture is a direct result of the fact that those responsible for the murder of President Kennedy have never been brought to justice.


To sum up: A Farewell To Justice suggests that the clandestine service of the CIA not only covered up the truth about the Kennedy assassination - that's easy to demonstrate from the four million documents now residing at the National Archives - but organized the event itself. That the CIA escaped without penalty, this extraordinary fact, has been integrated over these forty-two years into the body politic. It has produced a political culture where the unthinkable has become accepted practice. Meaningful freedom of the press has fallen into serious jeopardy.

For a flagrant example of what we have come to, we might revisit the scantily reported exchange on December 1st (2005) between Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel and John Yoo, a former deputy assistant to Attorney General John Ashcroft, a participant in the writing of the Patriot Act, and now a Berkeley law professor.

The subject of the debate was the illegal expansion of presidential powers.

Professor Cassel asks, If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him? And Yoo answers, No treaty.

Cassel follows up: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo. And Yoo replies, I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

If Professor Cassel's hypothetical question seems melodramatic, we have Martin Garbus, alarmed by the twin expansion of Presidential and police powers, writing in the New York Observer: This country is approaching a dangerous turning point, and suggesting that the United States today bears some similarities to Weimar Germany where liberal democracy was not able to contend with the fascist onslaught.

In Miami a few weeks ago I was struck by the omnipresence, on the streets and restaurants, of police officers from a variety of law enforcement agencies. Famously, Benjamin Franklin replied to a question of whether this new land should be a monarchy or a republic with the line, A republic, if you can keep it.

What begins as surveillance moves to wiretapping, then COINTELPRO tricks, and finally to murder - a diagram of what happened to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and why the illegal NSA surveillance is so alarming.

We have not been aided in understanding the meaning of the Kennedy assassination by the continued public silence of those closest to President Kennedy. One day I requested of Wilmer Thomas, one of Jim Garrison's law school classmates (Tulane School of Law, Class of 1949) to ask his acquaintance, Kennedy adviser Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., whom he believed was behind the assassination of President Kennedy. Professor Schlesinger observed, quietly, We were at war with the National Security people.


That the CIA at its highest levels exacted its revenge on President Kennedy has been an open secret since 1963. A Gallup poll on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination in 2003 found that twice as many people believed that the CIA was implicated in the assassination as there were who accepted the official fiction that Oswald had acted alone.

In 1963, people were already worried abut the CIA's extraordinary use of its powers. In the New York Times, Arthur Krock wrote in October 1963 that if ever there would be a coup in the United States, it would come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The CIA, Krock wrote, was a malignancy on the body politic. It is difficult to imagine such words being printed in the Times today, so profoundly has our freedom of the press eroded since the time of the Kennedy assassination.

After the death of President Kennedy, ex-President Harry S. Truman, under whose watch the CIA was created in 1947, wrote on the front page of the Washington Post, that the CIA had been running a shadow government, becoming operational. Brazenly, Allen Dulles at one point even told a reporter to think of the CIA as the State Department for unfriendly countries. The CIA's policy-making also involved interference in the electoral process in Italy and France, funneling money to certain political parties - in Italy it was the Christian Democrats whom the CIA funded in an effort to prevent a coalition of socialists and Communists from taking power. The assassination of Prime Minister Aldo Moro was connected to that CIA campaign.

At the time of the assassination, Charles de Gaulle remarked that John F. Kennedy, whom he admired, had died as a result of an intra-government conflict, a situation not uncommon in many countries. The documentation available since the passage of the JFK Act in 1992 overwhelmingly supports de Gaulle's view.

The rubber-stamping of the Warren Report by the press in 1964 seems to mark the moment when the mainstream press became embedded in official versions of events. Traces of that process have surfaced. In April 1967 the CIA issued a memo (available at the National Archives) instructing friendly reporters on how to reply to challenges to the Warren Report, recommendations that have resurfaced in the past few years in a renewed set of attacks on Jim Garrison, a decade after his death.

So it should come as no surprise that the New York Times for a year covered up the National Security Agency domestic surveillance of citizens with rubber-stamped search warrants issued under a Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) run by the Pentagon, or with no warrants at all. Only when their own reporter was about to publish a book detailing the evidence did the Times run that story. It should be horrifying that the Congressional debate about the Patriot Act has not been over whether there should be such a government capability, but how long it should be extended.

CONTINUED...

http://www.joanmellen.net/NYC_2006article.html



It's no game. And it's far from over. I'm on the side of democracy and freedom and the Constitution of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
40. Here's a handy site that debunks most of the JFK CTs.
Lots of links...and you don't even need to buy Bugliosi's book!:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. Prof. McAdams is a professional debunker who's been caught practicing deception.
Don't take my word for it. Here's what experts say:



T H E O F F I C I A L M A C A D A M S F A Q

This FAQ seems to have prematurely disappeared from DejaNews, but after considerable searching on my old hard drive, here, by popular demand, is the "Official John MacAdams FAQ," first posted on Usenet way back in 1995 by a wonderful Englishman named Bill MacDowall. Bill made "John Locke" (an earlier and even meaner version of "Amythest") stop smearing people on this newsgroup forever by using well-paid lawyers, who for once served a reasonably worthy cause.

This FAQ exists to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about John McAdams.

This FAQ will be posted regularly to forewarn new users of the dangers of becoming another McAdams victim.


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

1. Who is John McAdams?

John McAdams is a professor of political science employed in the Jesuit Marquette University.



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

2. Is John McAdams hell-bent on destroying the (alt.conspiracy.jfk) newsgroup?

Sadly yes. His own words appended below summarize his intentions better than I could.

From jmcadams@primenet.com Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700

You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme
to make this group a shambles.
And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
I have publicly announced it.
I have made it perfectly obvious.
I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
It's blatantly obviously to everybody.

.John






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

This recent post by McAdams should be viewed in terms of the Charter
he submitted as part of the process of forming the moderated JFK group:



CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY


This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK's death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this important topic.

One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content.


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

3. Is McAdams connected to the CIA?

Many people have suggested he is and it would not be difficult to imagine how useful a professor of political science at a respected university would be as a CIA asset. It is impossible to know if McAdams has "company" links but his background and behavior may shed some light.

The following is a quote from a letter written by McAdams to the Milwaukee Sentinel Newspaper:

(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.

The article below throws some light on just how "un-spooky" the ICPSR actually is

Not being widely known outside its narrow area of research the ICPSR may not register with most people, but if you are familiar with intelligence and covert action, you will recognize that some of their "classes" deal in "nation building" concept, which is what the interventionists call it when they set up a puppet government through subversion of the existing institutions of said nation.

The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for Social Research, or ISR which itself has been documented has recipient of spook research grants.

This is a repost of something Lisa Pease posted a while back that elaborates on these spook research grants and also contains Mcadams' admission, if not boast, that he was at one time "official representative" to ICPSR.

They have a web page, so you can check it out for yourself. You may notice studies on assassinations and the courses on the "formation of elites" in Chile etc..

The URL is: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu /




Of course, McAdams may or may not be connected with the CIA, you pay your money and take your chance in dealing with him.


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

4. Has McAdams any track record in covert-type activity?



It seems he has!
John McAdams attended the 1995 Copa Conference using the assumed name Paul Nolan. More than that, he also fabricated a background to go with the name in that he purported himself to be a jet-propulsion expert and some-time computer store owner from Sherwood, Wisconsin. In that guise, he was quoted in an article in the Washington press by journalist Matt Labash. Mr. Labash later confirmed that McAdams had duped him. Mr. Labash had quoted Paul (McAdams) Nolan in good faith whilst in fact McAdams was lying through his teeth.

McAdams later claimed he had used an assumed name to avoid contact with users of the alt.conspiracy group who may have been attending the conference. With McAdams record of willfully abusing users of the group, this story might seem plausible but going to trouble of inventing a detailed cover story and lying to the press have more sinister overtones.

CONTINUED...
http://surftofind.com/faq



Shutting down discussion of a subject would disqualify him as an authority from my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #52
62. Ha! What a laugh. The guy debunks the JFK CT BS so he MUST be a covert government agent!!!
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 11:10 PM by stopbush
Your jfk ct alt group only allows people to play who will support and reinforce their fantasy world, so when this guy shows up and calls the lies and fantasies for what they are, he's deemed to be "disqualified as an authority in my book" by Octafish because he won't abide by the group's self-serving rules.

He's CIA!

He's a disrupter!

So say the CT "experts."

Do you people ever step back and listen to yourselves?

Next you'll be telling us he drove Oswald to work that day.

And how does McAdams go about his debunking? Why, by quoting excerpts from CT books that state things like "the FBI agents hired by the WC couldn't reproduce Oswald's shots," and then providing a link to the WCR that gives chapter and verse that proves the CT book is outright lying about what the WCR actually said. A quick perusal of McAdams site shows him offering few if any opinions on the matter while providing copious links to evidence and items from the public record that seem to have eluded the dedicated and selfless CT believers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #62
186. Does his website mention how he impersonated other people?
It's important to remember that the good professor isn't always what he pretends to be.

From the McAdams FAQ:



4. Has McAdams any track record in covert-type activity?

It seems he has!

John McAdams attended the 1995 Copa Conference using the assumed name Paul Nolan. More than that, he also fabricated a background to go with the name in that he purported himself to be a jet-propulsion expert and some-time computer store owner from Sherwood, Wisconsin. In that guise, he was quoted in an article in the Washington press by journalist Matt Labash. Mr. Labash later confirmed that McAdams had duped him. Mr. Labash had quoted Paul (McAdams) Nolan in good faith whilst in fact McAdams was lying through his teeth.

McAdams later claimed he had used an assumed name to avoid contact with users of the alt.conspiracy group who may have been attending the conference. With McAdams record of willfully abusing users of the group, this story might seem plausible but going to trouble of inventing a detailed cover story and lying to the press have more sinister overtones.

SOURCE:

http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html



It's one thing to argue the facts. It's another thing to pretend to be telling the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
90. Thank you - good to see this confirmation tho the stuff he writes is inane ....
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 03:23 PM by defendandprotect
if you know anything at all about the assassination.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
100. Why don't you just recommend
the Warren Commission Report while you are at it. I read it and it is full of errors and omissions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
42. another kick for Octafish and the Truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
180. CIA Instructions to 'Media Assets' regarding assassination of President Kennedy
The Mighty Wurlitzer wants everyone to play their one-note tune:



CIA Document #1035-960

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report


1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active (business) addresses are requested:
    a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

    b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
    a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

    b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

    c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

    d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

    e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

    f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

    g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE:

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



The instructions leave no doubt about who's side the media bosses are on. Only the lone-nut conclusion gets prime air-time and print coverage. Posner got the attention in '93 and John Newman got ignored; Bugliosi got the spotlight in '08 and Douglass got zip; and all the major nutwork "specials" on the subject support the Warren Commission and seldom mention the HSCA's work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #180
202. GUILTY written all over it ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
44. Vince Bugliosi was on TV promoting his book. He said that he has
a little exercise that he does when he speaks to groups that believe the JFK CTs:

"How many of you believe that the Warren Commission Report was a white wash and a cover up?"

All hands go up.

"How many of you here have read the Warren Commission Report?"

No hands go up.

Sorta like this thread on DU...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #44
101. Here's your Warren Commission's entire argument ... The 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).

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

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

That makes clear why the Warren Commission's case is bogus.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
103. Regarding "Sorta like this thread on DU"... Allen Dulles stated the same thing about the Report.
"But nobody reads. Don't believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record...The public will read very little."

(September 6, 1964, Warren Commission internal memo)

Dulles was fired by JFK for lying to the President in regards to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He should be a suspect in the case, not a member of the investigation.

BTW: I did read the report. It was pure coverup.

If you really want to learn something about the subject, read Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #44
106. I have read the WCR and it is
full of bullshit. Kind of like you. LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
53. A debunking of the Bugliosi book
"...Bugliosi can succeed in large part because he addresses each and every piece of evidence that inculpates a state murder in splendid isolation from every other so that there is neither a cumulative record of compounding probabilities nor a coherent narrative of how a political assassination was accomplished, and by whom..."

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Another debunking of the Bugliosi book
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Wow. A bunch of rantings by wing nut CT believers and you call it a debunking of Bugliosi.
Some people are cheap dates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. Liberals = wing nuts?
At least we know where your coming from now. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. I'm a liberal who doesn't happen to be a CT wing nut.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 11:55 PM by stopbush
No, wing nuts=wing nuts, whether their wing nuttery sustains itself on CT BS about JFK or 9/11.

Look, I'm a liberal who likes to see evidence for things. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary I expect the evidence to be. And by evidence, I mean hard evidence, not opinion, belief, conjecture or screwball hypothesis. I don't believe in supernatural entities (ie: gods) and I don't believe that a good part of the US government engages in such plots and crimes, for the simple reason that the people in government positions operate from a default position of FAILING, not succeeding.

So, yes, the government FAILED JFK when they failed to protect him. The government FAILED Japanese Americans when they stripped them of their civil rights during WWII. The government FAILED in CA when they allowed that bigoted Prop 8 to appear on our CA ballot this month. I see no reason to compound the insult by adding the injury of belief that these failures have the capacity to pull off things like 9/11 or the JFK killing and to keep it quiet for years. Postulating easily-disproved CT theories about JFK serves no useful purpose that I can see, especially when such theories (actually, they are hypotheses, not theories) and grounded in fear and conjecture and in direct conflict with established, tested (and retested) and proven facts.

Hope that helps in seeing where I'm coming from.

Where are you coming from? "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination?" (ctka.net). Yikes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #70
102. Ha! I guess anyone who questions the govt. line
on anything is a wingnut or CT. By the way there are conspiracies in this world. This country was founded on one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #56
72. BTW, Octafish, do you still believe the "Bledsoe" document is authentic?
For those not in the know, the Bledsoe document was published in 1994 by the CTKA. It is an alleged police report of an altercation between Jack Ruby and Oswald at Mrs Bledsoe's boarding house. The authenticity of the document was immediately questioned by researcher David Perry. In 1999, two hoaxers came forward who admitted that they forged the police report in 1966 in an attempt to embarrass JFK CT advocate Mark Lane, who the forgers disliked. But the forgers had a sense of humor - if you look at all copies of the document just below the heading GENERAL OFFENSE REPORT, you will find a series of numbers. They are 21-18-1-6-9-14-11. Convert these to their alphabetic counterparts and the message becomes U-R-A-FINK. The people who created the document insisted to researcher Perry that this was a direct result of their attitude toward Mark Lane.

AFAIK, the CTKA hasn't yet admitted that they were had, but I'm willing to hear from Octafish that they have admitted to being the hapless victims of this scam. A search I ran of the ctka site didn't find the 1994 article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
108. Boy you spend a lot of time
reading conspiracy sites. How come? It sounds like it is your job or something. LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #108
158. No, I spent some time reading the WCR and Buglioisi's book on the subject,
so I spend a little time doing the easier debunkings of the JFK CT crowd. - like the softballs offered up on DU.

Hey, where's that donation to DU? They'll accept anything if you're in a bad way financially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #72
110. BTW, do you believe the 26 volumes manufactured by the Warren Commission are authentic?
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 07:45 PM by Gabi Hayes
despite their innumerable contradictions, inaccuracies, ommissions, distortions, etc?

you sound like a fundamentalist christian, with the accent on the third and fourth syllables of the couplet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #53
92. Thank you, Octafish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
57. There were a lot of questions in first thread which need some truth applied ...
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 10:16 PM by defendandprotect
I'll see if I can pick up some of it --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #57
183. Assassination as a Tool of Fascism
From an interesting conference, The Fourth Reich in America...



Assassination as a Tool of Fascism

by John Judge

EXCERPT...

One important one is an American, in fact, an American Fascist by the name of John J McCloy. McCloy was a Rockefeller banking lawyer. I saw Marcel Ophuls who did some of the films on the Nuremburg situation, The Sorrow and the Pity, and Memory of Justice, at a public talk. And someone came up and asked him about McCloy, `Is he connected to the internationals?' And Ophuls said, `It would be more accurate to say the internationals are connected to him.'

There was a very good article some years ago in Harpers about him, `Minister without Portfolio,' that began to go into his background, all the way back to the 1920s when he was sent over to Germany to check about World War I sabotage activities, and ended up friends with some of Hitler's early cronies, and met Hitler, and stayed in that area for some time. He was connected to Sullivan and Cromwell, a Rockefeller banking firm that kept its German investments going even after the mass deaths of the Jews started in Germany. They had investments there that they didn't want to back off from.

And McCloy eventually got into a position in the government where he was the Under-Secretary of War. Somebody pointed out to me earlier that 1947-1948 is also when we changed from `Secretary of War,' to `Secretary of Defense.' And just that little word change is enough propaganda to make clear what's happening.

John J McCloy, among other things during the period when he was Under-Secretary of War, was responsible, along with Earl Warren and a fellow named S Dillon Reed, for the set-up of the Japanese concentration camps in the United States and the internment of Japanese, not German or white peoples, but Japanese people here. A lot of them lived out here in California, and you may know some of the history of the different concentration camps that were out here. People lost their property and their money. McCloy still speaks openly against any reparations for those people, and believes it was proper that he had them locked up and treated the way that they were during the war.

And it's interesting also that he worked on that with Earl Warren, who later shows up along with McCloy on the Warren Commission, to study the investigation of John Kennedy's death. He's one of the main members of the seven member Committee that helped to cover up the death of John F Kennedy.

John J McCloy also, in his position in the government, blocked efforts by the Jewish community here in America to have something done about the Nazi concentration camps. We knew they were there, we knew where they were. The Jews wanted the camps bombed, or they wanted the railroads going to the camps bombed, something, to stop the progress of the machinery of death in the Jewish community there. And his response at the time was that it would lead to `reparations against the Jews.' One has to wonder what they could have been. But he refused to go along with those plans.

And then after the war, when we came in militarily, we set up a fellow named General Lucius Clay, who also cut deals with many of these top Nazi elements. And then Lucius Clay's military occupation government was replaced by a transitional, but civil, government of the Allied powers that would then lead eventually into the earliest postwar German government. And who oversaw that transition? McCloy, as the High Commissioner of Germany. In that position he reversed some of the few convictions that happened at the Nuremberg trials. Only eight war criminals were sentenced to death for all the destruction that was done in that war. Only eight. Some were given prison sentences and almost all of those were out within a few years, in large part because of McCloy's intervention.

Of course, the trials were also undermined. One of the key people that undermined evidence and lost witnesses in that trial, working with the US Army, was later to go on into the International (Red) Cross, International Rescue Division. And that was one of a number of agencies; the Vatican also had a line for this, that provided false identification to the Nazi war criminals to help them move internationally. And that International Rescue Committee is still dominated by CIA and right wing elements. But at that time they were providing the `Glockenspiel,' the false identity cards. And then this fellow who moved into that position came to Texas. He was with a CIA front, a foundation called M Anderson, for many, many years. He was the special liaison between the Texas police investigation and the Warren Commission investigation of John Kennedy's death. And in that capacity he blocked any effective local study of the death, or local news from getting to the Warren Commission.

And there were a number of years when he was with Anderson. We don't hear of him. And then he reappears as the `most trusted man in America,' according to the press during the Watergate fiasco, in order to pardon Nixon. His name is Leon Jaworski.

OK. So these people move throughout the history. So I'm trying to give you some feel, or some examples, of how these people move. McCloy pardons all these key Nazis. He pardons Krupp. He pardons Dorhnberger. And these other top people are off the hook because of his intervention. And then, not only do they come here, but he continues to function right up to the current day. I mean Reagan, at the time he went to Bitburg, had a White House ceremony for some of them. The German government came and gave these awards to John J McCloy for his excellent work there in the period when we were supposed to be de-Nazifying Germany. And in fact, we were leading to the Nazification of the world, including America.

Another example would be that scientist I just mentioned, Walter Dorhnberger. He was a General, and he was responsible, essentially, for helping Werhner von Braun and the rocket program get whatever it wanted during the war. He was also responsible for being part of the administration of the Dora concentration camp, where Jews and other slave labor were worked to death building, at a tremendous pace, these V1 and V2 rockets that were being used against the civilian population in England. And there were heinous examples, besides the level of the labor and the forced labor, of public hangings and other types of war criminality there at Dora. And all these people nowadays either aren't asked ... I mean, I think they've got one sentence in one piece of footage of Werhner von Braun, our fabulous rocket scientist, talking about Dora, saying some little piece about the conditions in the mines, you know, ` ... weren't that bad.'

SNIP...

When the Warren Commission investigators had finished their work and they went to write the Report, they didn't take any of the attorneys or any of the people that they had, essentially, already bought off to do a phoney investigation. They wanted to make sure there was nothing in that Report that would go wrong. And when I went into the Archives, about 300 cubic feet of the minutes from the meetings were notes, voluminous notes, from those 5 different staff investigative teams to the Warren Commission, in relation to the final report which they had read. And the notes say, `What's the basis for this conclusion? What's the evidence for this?' Line after line. Even the liars couldn't go as far as the author of the Warren Commission Report had gone. But the report went out intact. Hale Boggs asked in one of the meetings whether they should print any of the evidence. `I guess you know,' Boggs said, `It might look a little fishy if we didn't.' `Go ahead and print it,' Dulles said. `Nobody will read it anyway.' And Boggs said, `A few of those people out there know how to read.' I doubt he meant me, but here I am.

And when you do read it, you can find it out. But the person that actually wrote the report is a fellow named Otto Winnacker. He was on TDY, transfer from the Pentagon to the Warren Commission, to do that job. He was also, historically, one of 26 official historians of the Reich who worked directly under the Reichschancellor, Adolph Hitler, and was brought here into the United States.

When Gehlen finished setting up the CIA here, he went back to Germany and helped set up the postwar German, NATO, and French Intelligence structures that rule the reactionary politics in those countries and in Europe today, and that command our constant military presence there. Forty years after the war's supposed to be over.

He was replaced in large part, at that point, by Otto von Bolshwing. Otto Albrecht von Bolshwing, who had been Adolph Eichmann's superior at the Hebrew desk for the movement of the Jews and the Final Solution and the killing and the planning. But he was never tried in Nazi Germany. He was just allowed to slip through the cracks, like many of them, and ended up here, in the United States. He helped form a corporation called TCI, with Edwin Wilson, Helena von Damm, and with other people connected to the intelligence agencies, as one of many front companies out here in California. When it went bankrupt, it sold its largest subsidiary to Albert Hakim and Richard Secord. And that subsidiary became Stanford Technology Trading Group, and Trading Group International. These were their fronts, during that time.

And the financing, if you remember, of North's operation, was through Credit Suisse. Well Credit Suisse was set up as a bank, in the 1940s, as the funnel and conduit for Permindex. It was the banking firm to take care of Permindex's international operations.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/ATF.html



Thanks for caring, my Friend. You know what it's all about, defendandprotect.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #183
203. Jim Marrs also has new book: The Rise Of The Fourth Reich
Keeping the cover going is still obviously essential to them --

Thanks for the kind words --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
63. Hey Octafish, what do you know about Win Scott?
CIA station chief Mexico City. When he died James Angleton was dispatched to Scott's house to collect his paper's. He was writing a book. Scott's wife felt threatened by this, like Angleton was "cleaning up" loose end's concerning Oswald and JFK, including the Oswald Mexico City tapes. It's covered in the Our Man in Mexico: Win Scott and the hidden History of the CIA Book also claims that Oswald was directly involved in Castro assassination plot.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002849
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. CIA Mexico City guys got Angleton to call off CIA investigator John Whitten.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 11:40 PM by Octafish
Thank you for the heads-up on the book, arcadian! I look forward to reading it.

The thing all comes together in Mexico City. There's the real Oswald. There's the impersonated Oswald. There's CIA brass. There's Mafia killers. There's the shadow of the swastika.

There was one good guy, The Good Spy:



The good spy: how the quashing of an honest C.I.A. investigator helped launch 40 years of JFK conspiracy theories and cynicism about the Feds

Jefferson Morley
Washington Monthly, December 2003

It was 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 23, 1963, and John F. Kennedy had been dead for 12 hours. His corpse was being dressed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, touched and retouched to conceal the ugly bullet wounds. In Dallas, the F.B.I. had Lee Harvey Oswald in custody.

The lights were still on at the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters in Langley, Va. John Whitten, the agency's 43-year-old chief of covert operations for Mexico and Central America, hung up the phone with his Mexico City station chief. He had just learned something stunning: A C.I.A. surveillance team in Mexico City had photographed Oswald at the Cuban consulate in early October, an indication that the agency might be able to quickly uncover the suspect's background.

At 1:36 am, Whitten sent a cable to Mexico City: "Send staffer with all photos of Oswald to HQ on the next available flight. Call Mr. Whitten at 652-6827." Within 24 hours Whitten was leading the C.I.A. investigation into the assassination. After two weeks of reviewing classified cables, he had learned that Oswald's pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially has attempt to shoot a right-wing JFK critic, a diary of has efforts to confront anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and has public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. For this investigatory zeal, Whitten was taken off the case.

C.I.A. Deputy Director of Plans Richard Helms blocked Whitten's efforts, effectively ending any hope of a comprehensive agency investigation of the accused assassin, a 24-year-old ex-Marine, who had sojourned in the Soviet Union and spent time as a leftist activist in New Orleans. In particular, Oswald's Cuba-related political life, which Whitten wished to pursue, went unexplored by the C.I.A. The blueribbon Warren commission appointed by President Johnson concluded in September 1964 that Oswald alone and unaided had killed Kennedy. But over the years, as information which the commission's report had not accounted for leaked out, many would come to see the commission as a cover-up, in part because it failed to assign any motive to Oswald, in part because the government's pre-assassination surveillance of Oswald had been more intense than the government ever cared to disclose, and finally because its reconstruction of the crime sequence was flawed.

Both the story of Oswald and the C.I.A., and the way in which it leaked out in bits and pieces fueled a generation of conspiracy-minded authors, journalists, and filmmakers who mined Richard Helms's dubious legacy--a rich vein of ominous ambiguity and unanswered questions about one of the most jarring events of modern American history. The untimely end to Whitten's investigation, which prevented a public airing of what the government actually knew, also contributed to a generation of public cynicism about Washington--to a national mythology of skullduggery, and the suspicion that secret agencies in Washington were up to no good and the truth never gets out. In the decades since Kennedy's death, the "rogue C.I.A. assassin" has become a stock Hollywood character, his villainy engrained in spy movies and the popular culture.

SNIP...

Whitten felt sand bagged when Helms turned the Oswald investigation over to Angleton. Helms told him his services would no longer be needed, and Whitten was sent back to his Latin America duties. His ideas for investigating Oswald's Cuban connections were abandoned.

The secrets Dick Helms kept

What Whitten didn't know was that Helms's reluctance to investigate Oswald's connection to the pro-Castro movement had little to do with unraveling the Kennedy assassination--and a lot to do with hiding the potentially embarrassing performance of Helms's top anti-Castro operatives in regards to Oswald. In the 12 weeks prior to Nov. 22, the agency had been keeping tabs on the man who would later assassinate the president. In August, Oswald had tried to insinuate himself into the ranks of the anti-Castro Cuban Student Directorate, then turned around and started handing out pamphlets for the Fair Hay for Cuba Committee. What the C.I.A. failed to disclose for more than 30 years was that the Directorate's leaders in Miami were receiving $-95,000 a month at the time. As I reported in the Miami New Times two years ago, an undercover agency officer working for Helms named George Joannides was guiding and monitoring the group's activities at the time of its contacts with Oswald.

In September, one of the agency's Latin American operatives had stood in line next to Oswald in New Orleans as he applied for a visa to travel to Mexico City where, two weeks later, Oswald visited the Cuban consulate. His arrival there was recorded by C.I.A. photo and audio surveillance teams reporting to a highly-regarded career officer named David Atlee Phillips, perhaps Helms's most accomplished protege. Reports of Oswald's presence in Mexico City went back to Langley, where they were reviewed by Helms's top aide, Tom Karamessines. Had the agency's investigation of Oswald proceeded the way Whitten wanted, the accused assassin's connections to Cuba would have been fully reviewed, forcing the agency to account, at least intenally, for what Joannides, Phillips, and Karamessines knew about Oswald.

Helms may have also feared that having John Whitten running loose in the C.I.A. files might expose his ongoing effort to arrange Castro's assassination. Under Helms's direction, C.I.A. agents had been encouraging Rolando Cubela, a charismatic young commandante who had come to power with Castro in 1959 but had later become disillusioned, to consider simply killing Castro himself. Cubela was an important asset at the heart of the Cuban government, memorably code-named AMLASH. On the day Kennedy was killed, Helms had sent an aide to bring a pen, fixed to deliver deadly poison, to Cubela in Paris. Even after Kennedy was dead, Helms continued to pursue Castro's murder. He did not call off the AMLASH plot.

CONTINUED...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_12_35/ai...





This doo-doo goes deep and high-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #69
97. Meant to write: ''Helms'' ordered Whitten off the investigation.
Here's a bit more on the Mr. Whitten, one of the heroes who tried to get to truth:



John M. Whitten

Spartacus.Schoolnet.co.uk.

EXCERPT...

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Richard Helms initially appointed Whitten to undertake the agency's in-house investigation. Whitten and his staff of 30 officers, were sent a large amount of information from the FBI. According to Gerald D. McKnight "the FBI deluged his branch with thousands of reports containing bits and fragments of witness testimony that required laborious and time-consuming name checks." Whitten later described most of this FBI material as "weirdo stuff". As a result of this initial investigation, Whitten told Richard Helms that he believed that Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

On 6th December, Nicholas Katzenbach invited John Whitten and Birch O'Neal, Angleton's trusted deputy and senior Special Investigative Group (SIG) officer to read Commission Document 1 (CD1), the report that the FBI had written on Lee Harvey Oswald. Whitten now realized that the FBI had been withholding important information on Oswald from him. He also discovered that Richard Helms had not been providing him all of the agency's available files on Oswald. This included Oswald's political activities in the months preceding the assassination.

After talking to Winston Scott, the CIA station chief in Mexico City, Whitten discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been photographed at the Cuban consulate in early October, 1963. Scott had not reported this matter to Whitten, his boss, at the time. Nor had Scott told Whitten that Oswald had also visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. In fact, Whitten had not been informed of the existence of Oswald, even though there was a 201 pre-assassination file on him that had been maintained by the Counterintelligence/Special Investigative Group.

Whitten had a meeting with Richard Helms where he argued that Oswald's pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially his attempt to shoot the right-wing General Edwin Walker, his relationship with anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and his public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Whitten added that has he had been denied this information, his initial conclusions on the assassination were "completely irrelevant."

Helms responded by taking Whitten off the case. James Jesus Angleton, chief of the CIA's Counterintelligence Branch, was now put in charge of the investigation. According to Gerald McKnight (Breach of Trust) Angleton "wrested the CIA's in-house investigation away from John Whitten because he either was convinced or pretended to believe that the purpose of Oswald's trip to Mexico City had been to meet with his KGB handlers to finalize plans to assassinate Kennedy."

Whitten was also later to discover that CIA officer George Joannides had in 1963 been the case officer for the Student Revolutionary Directorate, the Cuban exile group with whom Lee Harvey Oswald had multiple interactions in New Orleans.

In 1965 Whitten was moved sideways into an important post reviewing operations. Despite being awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal in 1970, the CIA's highest honour, Whitten's never received further promotion. He therefore took early retirement and moved to Austria, where he pursued a new career as a singer with the Vienna Men's Choral Society.

In 1975 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee began investigating the CIA. Senator Stuart Symington asked Richard Helms if the agency had been involved in the removal of Salvador Allende. Helms replied no. He also insisted that he had not passed money to opponents of Allende.

Investigations by the CIA's Inspector General and by Frank Church and his Select Committee on Intelligence Activities showed that Helms had lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They also discovered that Helms had been involved in illegal domestic surveillance and the murders of Patrice Lumumba, General Abd al-Karim Kassem and Ngo Dinh Diem. Helms was eventually found guilty of lying to Congress and received a suspended two-year prison sentence.

In its final report, issued in April 1976, the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities concluded: Domestic intelligence activity has threatened and undermined the Constitutional rights of Americans to free speech, association and privacy. It has done so primarily because the Constitutional system for checking abuse of power has not been applied. The committee also revealed details for the first time of what the CIA called Operation Mockingbird.

The committee also reported that the Central Intelligence Agency had withheld from the Warren Commission, during its investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, information about plots by the Government of the United States against Fidel Castro of Cuba; and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had conducted a counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) against Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

In 1976 Thomas N. Downing began campaigning for a new investigation into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Downing said he was certain that Kennedy had been killed as a result of a conspiracy. He believed that the recent deaths of Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli were highly significant. He also believed that the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had withheld important information from the Warren Commission. Downing was not alone in taking this view. In 1976, a Detroit News poll indicated that 87% of the American population did not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy.

SOURCE w LINKS: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhitten.htm



Sorry to add to the confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Mason Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
74. Unfortunately
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 11:34 AM by Perry Mason
Most of those who know first hand are likely dead by now.

Some conspirators and abettors to the cover-up, such as Arlen Specter and Dan Rather, are still befouling the air. I would say they deserve to be exposed, but they have been and no one really seems to care.

Today the media, under the heavy hand of the current conservative power structure, has been influenced to return to the Lone Gunman Charade, perhaps thinking enough time has passed that modern audiences will fail to realize the abject ludicrousness of this scenario. Dallas is my hometown, and all local media have returned to referring to Oswald as "Kennedy's assassin" rather than ACCUSED assassin, as the man was neither tried nor convicted, and each year on the anniversary, the local news wholeheartedly endorses the long debunked Lone Gunman BS.

Even Gary Mack, the curator of the JFK Sixth Floor Museum and one of the original developers of the Badge Man photo, has now back-tracked and is leaning strongly into being a spineless apologist for the Warren Cover Up.

They get away with this because people are stupid.

This will go down as an indelible stain on American history, it already has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. K&R --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. They have kept anyone who would expose them from power ...
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 12:16 PM by defendandprotect
and no one really seems to care.

The problem isn't that no one cares but that no one has the power to

overturn this cabal --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
184. Posada Carriles and the Kennedy assassination
Luis Posada Carriles helped bomb a Cuban airliner, killing all 73 people aboard. Two "presidents" Bush have done all they can to help keep him from justice. Not odd, when one considers that Posada Carriles may be tied to Dallas.



Posada Carriles and the Kennedy assassination

By Deirdre Griswold
Published Jun 7, 2005 9:54 PM

The case of Luis Posada Carriles, a known terrorist whom U.S. authorities have refused to extradite to Venezuela, reaches deep into the shadowy world of CIA covert action, especially against the Cuban Revolution.

There is also mounting evidence that Posada Carriles was connected to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and was in Dallas's Dealey Plaza the day the fatal shots were fired.

Posada Carriles spent nine years in prison in Venezuela for having masterminded the mid-air bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner in 1976, killing all 73 people aboard. The CIA is known to have bribed Venezuelan prison guards to arrange his escape in 1985. That is the year that George H.W. Bush became head of the CIA. One guard, now retired, recently described these CIA efforts on Venezuelan television.

Posada Carriles was also arrested and convicted in Panama in 2000 for entering the country with the intent of killing Cuban President Fidel Castro, who was attending an Ibero-American summit meeting there. But President Mireya Moscoso, in one of her last acts in office, pardoned Posada Carriles and three other convicted terrorists after they had spent just one year in jail.

Moscoso is part of the old political establishment that was returned to power in Panama after the U.S., under the same George H.W. Bush, by then the president, invaded the country in 1989. She spent many years in Miami, where she was close to leaders of the Cuban exile community who have worked with the CIA ever since the Cuban Revolution.

Moscoso's popularity in office plummeted to the lowest of any Panamanian president, and she now faces corruption charges. She gave all 72 Panamanian legislators expensive Cartier watches and jewelry right before a vote on the government's proposed budget. Her secretary admitted to having a freezer stuffed with thousands of dollars in cash. However, this friend of the Miami exile gang says Fidel Castro is behind the corruption charges. (Dictionary of Political Figures)

Even Congress saw a conspiracy

The nexus of Cuban counter-revolutionary exiles, the CIA and organized crime figures in the Kennedy assassination has long been known. Even though the official U.S. government position remains that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, the majority of people here and around the world don't buy it. And the one investigation of the assassination by Congress--by the House Select Committee on Assassinations--found in its final report that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

CONTINUED...

http://www.workers.org/2005/us/posada-jfk-0616 /



More on Posada Carriles and his ties to War Inc:

Beat the BFEE: Poppys CIA warned about terror plots and did not stop them

PS: A most hearty welcome to DU, Perry Mason. Wish it were under happier circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
79. You were right
You were right. I didn't hear it eiter any where. I was at the drug store when I wrote out a check and asked the clerk the date and she told me and I said OMG today is the day that JFK as killed. I was surprised I hadn't heard anything. I will never forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #79
185. The Posthumous Assassination of JFK
This goes to the heart of the matter -- Corporate McPravda does all they can to bury the truth about a great President.



The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers


By James DiEugenio

EXCERPT...

But there is another more insidious strain of the rightwing in America. These are the conservatives who sometimes disguise themselves as Democrats, as liberals, as internationalists. This group is typified by men like Aver(e)ll Harriman, Henry Stimson, John Foster Dulles and the like. The common rubric used to catalog them is the Eastern Establishment. The Kennedy brothers were constantly at odds with them. In 1962, Bobby clashed with Dean Acheson during the missile crisis. Acheson wanted a surprise attack; Bobby rejected it saying his brother would not go down in history as another Tojo. In 1961, JFK disobeyed their advice at the Bay of Pigs and refused to add air support to the invasion. He was punished for this in Fortune magazine with an article by Time-Life employee Charles Murphy that blamed Kennedy for the failure of the plan. Kennedy stripped Murphy of his Air Force reserve status but Murphy wrote to Ed Lansdale that didnt matter; his loyalty was to Allen Dulles anyway. In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crowning jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board. And as Donald Gibson has written, a member of this group, Jock Whitney, was the first to put out the cover story about that Krazy Kid Oswald on 11/22/63 (Probe Vol. 4 No.1).

Killing off the Legacy

In 1964, author Morris Bealle, a genuine conservative and critic of the Eastern Establishment, wrote a novel called Guns of the Regressive Right, depicting how that elite group had gotten rid of Kennedy. There certainly is a lot of evidence to substantiate that claim. There were few tears shed by most rightwing groups over Kennedys death. Five years later, they played hardball again. King and Bobby Kennedy were shot. One would think the coup was complete. The war was over.

That would be underestimating these people. They are in it for the long haul. The power elite realizes that, in a very real and pragmatic sense, assassination isnt enough. You have to cover it up afterwards, and then be ready to smother any legacy that might linger. The latter is quite important since assassination is futile if a mans ideas live on through others. This is why the CIAs Bill Harvey once contemplated getting rid of not only Castro, but his brother Raul and Che Guevara as well as part of single operation. That would have made a clean sweep of it. (In Americas case, one could argue that such an operation was conducted here, over a period of five years.)

The smothering effect afterward must hold, since the assassinated leader cannot be allowed to become a martyr or legend. To use a prominent example, in 1973, right after the CIA and ITT disposed of Salvador Allende and his Chilean government, the State Department announced (falsely) that the U. S. had nothing to do with the coup. Later on, one of the CIA agents involved in that operation stated that Allende had killed himself and his mistress in the presidential palace. This was another deception. But it did subliminally equate Allendes demise with the death of Adolf Hitler.

The latter tactic is quite prevalent in covert operations. The use of sex as a discrediting device is often used by the CIA and its allies. As John Newman noted in Oswald and the CIA, the Agency tried to discredit its own asset June Cobb in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. It did the same to Sylvia Duran, Cuban embassy worker in Mexico City who talked to Oswald or an impersonator in 1963. In Probe (Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 9) we have seen how journalist (and CIA-applicant) Hugh Aynesworth and the New York Herald Tribune tried to smear Mark Lane with compromising photographs. If one goes to New Orleans, one will still meet those who say that Jim Garrison indicted Clay Shaw because he was himself gay and jealous of Shaws position in the homosexual underworld. And we all know how the FBI tried to drive King to suicide by blackmailing him with clandestinely made sex tapes.

The Church Committee

What precipitated these posthumous and personal attacks on the Kennedys? Something happened in the seventies that necessitated the second assassination from the right i.e. the use of scandal to stamp out Kennedys reputation and legacy. That something was the Church Committee. Belated revelations about the CIAs role in Watergate, and later of the CIAs illegal domestic operations created a critical firestorm demanding a full-scale investigation of the CIA. The fallout from Watergate had produced large Democratic majorities in both houses of congress via the 1974 elections. This majority, combined with some of the moderate Republicans, managed to form special congressional committees. The committee in the Senate was headed by Idahos Frank Church. Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesotas Walter Mondale, Colorados Gary Hart, Tennessees Howard Baker, and Pennsylvanias Richard Schweiker.

CONTINUED...

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr997-jfk.html



More on the Church Committee and its relevance to We the People today:

Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping

Thank you for never forgetting, southernyankeebelle.

PS: Would these were different circumstances... Wishing you a most hearty welcome to DU!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
83. Thank you, Octafish
Dogs bark but the caravan passes on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #83
219. Deception and Deceit: Media Coverage of JFK's Assassination


The Zapruder film captures President Kennedy's reaction to being hit in the throat.

From what I know about physics and gunfire, it seems if he'd been hit in the back,
with the bullet passing out of his throat, he'd be pushed forward.



DECEPTION AND DECEIT: MEDIA COVERAGE OF JFKS ASSASSINATION

Peter R. Whitmey
Abbotsford, BC
Nov. 4, 2003

A commonly used UPI photo was selected by the Vancouver Sun to accompany an excerpt from columnist George Fetherlings reference book on assassinations (A Biographical Dictionary Of The Worlds Assassins), which appeared in the April 12, 2001 edition (By Blade, Bullet, and Bomb). This particular photo was part of the FBIs initial investigation of the tragic events of November 22, 1963, surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. The photo was taken from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository through a four-power telescopic gun sight, showing a light-colored convertible, with two people in the front seat and two in the back. According to the caption below the photo, this was approximately what John F. Kennedys assassin sawwhen the first shot was fired.

However, the vehicle used by the FBI was only a four-seater, unlike the presidential limousine, which had two smaller jump seats installed, slightly lower in height, between the front and back row, where Governor Connally and his wife sat. Since JFKs own car was part of the evidence being examined, it could not be used for the reenactment, but presumably the FBI felt that the vehicle they used was good enough. For some reason, they also did not appear to wonder what kind of view of both Kennedy and Connally the assassin really had from his location, given the fact that a large tree in full bloom initially obscured his view as the Lincoln convertible drove down Elm St. after making a sharp turn off Houston St. In addition, a Cadillac convertible was directly behind JFKs vehicle, with Secret Service agents standing on the running boards on either side, which might also have impaired the assassins view momentarily.

As later divulged, the FBI was under orders from Assistant Attorney-General Nicholas Katzenbach (filling in for a grieving Robert Kennedy) to achieve several objectives, most important of which was to convince the public that Oswald was the lone assassin. However, there was an initial problem related to an apparent throat wound, which the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses all believed was one of entry. It had been described by Dr. Carrico in a November 22 medical report as a small penetrating wound and by Dr. Perry to UPI as an entrance wound below his Adams apple. When Perry was asked by a St. Louis Dispatch reporter how Oswald could have fired that shot from above and behind the President, he speculated that possibly JFK had turned around in his seat in order to be struck in the throat.

It was easy to confirm or reject the Dallas doctors suggestion, since the assassination had been filmed in its entirety by local dressmaker, Abraham Zapruder, whose home movie was examined by both the Secret Service and the FBI on November 23, during negotiations that resulted in the sale of the film to LIFE magazine, with copies going to both agencies. A decision was made by TIME/LIFE not to allow the footage to be shown on television that weekend, likely because of the shocking image of JFK being struck in the head, along with the bizarre reaction of Jackie Kennedy, who began crawling onto the back of the vehicle, obviously in a state of panic, as she apparently attempted to retrieve part of her husbands skull, while a Secret Service agent climbed onboard to protect her from possible further gunfire.

Instead, LIFE published small black and white frames in their next issue, and for the subsequent Memorial Edition, included several large color frames, none of which showed JFK turning around. Nevertheless, a junior reporter for LIFE (Paul Mandel, who died in 1965 at a young age) repeated Dr. Perrys suggestion as fact, even though he had watched the Zapruder film (referred to as an 8 millimeter film by the reporter). In his article dealing with some of the questions surrounding what had occurred in Dallas, he described how the film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposedtowards the snipers nestjust before he clutches it.

Although this statement was a total fabrication, LIFE has so far published Mandels article four times altogether, first in their Dec. 6, 1963, issue, followed by the Memorial Edition a week later, which was republished in November 1988 as well as November 2003 with no correction made, or any explanation provided to its readers. Nor was this blatant lie referred to in a book on the history of LIFE magazine published in the mid-1980s by a former editor, Loudon Wainwright (father of the singer). I spoke to Mr. Wainwright by phone in 1987 after reading his book, as well as to Richard Stolley, who had negotiated the Zapruder film purchase for TIME/LIFE, having written to both of them earlier, but neither one was aware of Mandels explanation. Clearly, the evidence suggested that JFK had been shot from at least two different directions, but the need to convince the general public that a lone assassin carried out the shooting was paramount.

NEWSWEEK magazine also reported on the FBIs conclusions in their December 23, 1963 issue, with a similar summary, except for the suggestion that the throat wound was perhaps an exit wound (which months later would be the Warren Commissions conclusion, as part of their single bullet theory). A week later both TIME and NEWSWEEK summarized the results of JFKs autopsy, which had been conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland on the night of November 22, even though it should have taken place at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. However, the body had been forcibly removed by the Secret Service from Parkland against the coroners wishes, allegedly at gunpoint. JFKs back wound was initially described by the media as being six inches below the collar line, consistent with a bullet hole through both his jacket and his shirt. In addition, a Secret Service report written by one of the agents on the follow-up car stated: I saw a shot hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.

Both TIME and NEWSWEEK reported that the throat wound had been caused by the third shot, which had exploded upon impact, causing a fragment to be deflected downward, passing through the throat, a highly speculative suggestion indeed. NEWSWEEK added that a whole bullet found at Parkland probably dropped out of the Presidents body while doctors were trying to save him. There was no mention of any missed shot, however, which had struck the sidewalk, with particles of concrete hitting a bystander in the cheek.

CONTINUED...

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Whitmey/deceptio...



Thank you very mcuh, peace frog. I very much appreciate you understanding the circus and attendant parade. As usual, We the People are left to clean up after the elephants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
84. I would hate to see this headline
45 Years on We must bring Bush killers to justice.

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #84
220. I, too, would hate to see that headline.
No one deserves to be treated like President Kennedy was treated -- both by his assassins and those who do all they can to smear his memory.

That's why I advocate prison for those guilty of crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
93. "What JFK Conspiracy Bashers Get Wrong" by Jefferson Morley (11-21-2007 Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jefferson-morley/what-jfk...

Of course some of these professional DEBUNKERS get PAID for their EFFORTS, too, regardless of the venue.

It's all part of INFORMATION WARFARE, which has replaced the fourth estate-aka the free press--imho and experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #93
112. Huffington presented this nonsense ---???
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 08:19 PM by defendandprotect
Disconnected from them a long time ago because of odd articles --

Of course, the Zapruder film was altered -- it was created for that purpose.


Dan Rather seems to have been shown an altered movement of JFK's head --

Life Magazine also tried to do same thing with slides of the movie

but they got caught --

And of course crowds of people went immediately running to the Grassy Knoll

because they knew that was the area shots came from --

So too did police immediately run to the GK --

Myriad number of Witnesses identify shots from GK including a soldier standing

in front of the fence with shots coming from behind him and Sen. Yarborough --

among many others.

The parking lot area was NOT immediately sealed and one or more individuals

claiming to be agents were able to flee --

If "lefties" and "liberals" support and understand the coup on JFK and ultimately

America -- hey, that's all of us!!!

Those not familiar with Prof, Jim Fetzer's writings on the altered Zapruder film

should check out his book at most bookstores...and/or his website --


AND, actually the Tunnheim Panel examining the classified under the 1992 JFK

Classified Records Act informed us that "Oswald was employed by the CIA and

worked on high level assignments and probably also for FBI"



PS: If GHW Bush asked for JFK file when he was prez, it was probably to REMOVE

evidence ---!!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
95. Go ask George Bush Senior.. he knows.. it was the CIA.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mfeher1971 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
99. A Rebuttal to the JFK Conspiracy Posters
Let me just get this out of the way:

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, to the exclusion of all others, in killing President John F. Kennedy.

There, I said it. So begins the flaming-for-heresy which will no doubt occur following my post. I fully expect that, but dont much care about it.

I came here as a sometime (but fully engaged) student of this piece of American history and to tell the story which is painful for many to hear.

To begin with, I have been following this issue since I was young, when I first opened a 1964 World Book Encyclopedia Year in Review wherein they discussed the JFK assassination. I became immediately absorbed by the primitive nature of the photographic evidence and harrowing reality it contained and although there is certainly a macabre fascination with all of the events and artifacts surrounding the assassination, it is nevertheless a great puzzlea puzzle which may easily be solved by following the evidence and using logic, science, math and physics to decipher.

Though ones first exposure to the crime is the statement that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is quickly buried under an avalanche of suspicion, dubious claims, and the inevitable murky pit which a student of the event is thrust into: That just about any agency, entity, or force with even a remote antagonism towards JFK, however slight, was somehow responsible for his death. Oftentimes this is made more ludicrous by the a la carte notion of who was involved and why, as though each agency or entity was bound by some chemical covalence in each of a multitude of scenarios positing that somehow they worked together to kill the President.

Like many, the fact that even such great controversy surrounds the event seems to somehow, by force of nature, indict history and force a conspiracy upon people. In other words, they seem to think that because there is controversy, indeed, this automatically makes it so. Put so plainly, this could easily be applied to the garbage written about and stated about any of our democratic heroes and individuals; that is, when allegations that a conspiracy was behind Vince Fosters death (a suicide by gunshot), we scoff and wave it off as the mad and frustrated rantings of the Regnery-Scaife imprint. But when confronted with same concerning our hero JFK, we give it full credence. Why?

Likewise, why is it that an enormous universe of skepticism surrounds JFKs murder, but not that of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Why is it so easy for people to accept that a lone redneck racist (James Earl Ray) was able to kill MLK and yet 45 years later people still cannot accept that a frustrated loser in life, who had nothing and was nothing in this world, was able to destroy Camelot with a $12.78 mail order rifle? What is so hard about grasping this?

This is not to say that healthy skepticism must be done away with. I place the JFK conspiracy buffs into two categories: The healthy skeptics, who may or may not be inclined to have at their disposal, or do their own research to find, evidence to buttress their claims; and the second camp, the complete loons, the ones who believe such madness like supernatural agents caused this to bring about some ridiculous end-of-times phantasmagoria which has yet to (and never will) occur.

I automatically dismiss the latter camp, for their wild-eyed tales are no better than the streetcorner hoboes preaching their melted-brain prophecies. They are no better than the intelligent design folks or the fundamentalist/Zionist people about whom much is argued here on Democratic Underground. They simply believe in a magical and/or alternatenot reality-basedworld. Thats their right, I suppose, but they are easily proven wrong, and must live their lives through that fact.

But the community of healthy skeptics, of which the OP seems to be a member, seems to have imbibed too much of Oliver Stones, Mark Lanes, Jim Garrisons, et. al. Kool-Aid. There are explanations and evidence which simply eliminate or otherwise make impossible their various claims.

Logic places the burden of proof on those making the claims. Logic, reason, math, science, physicsthese are all things taught to us in school, if we are so lucky. So why do we think they are not applicable to the world and its phenomena? Why do we think they can easily be discarded for the study of a great crime? It seems to me that we have replaced rational thought and examination with sensationalist and wild-eyed sinister fantasies.

Even the most spurious pieces of supposed evidence cause a sort of Pavlovian reflex in those disinclined to believe. There is an example in one of those posts here where some sort of nefarious plot is indicated by the mere fact that Secret Service agents are stationed on the rear bumper of the Presidential limousine holding handrails there designed for that very purpose; somehow this is supposed to constitute a standing down of Secret Service protection, as if the only true protection these nonbelievers would be satisfied with is if the agents veritably sat in JFKs lap and buried him in the seat. Contrary to what they want to believe, it produces no evidence other than the obvious: That Secret Service agents were stationed on the bumper of the limousine holding handrails specifically designed for that purpose.

In my own study of the assassination, one can find the answersif one is capable and willing to do soby simply reading and examining. My materials consist of The Warren Commission summary report, Gerald Posners Case Closed, Vincent Bugliosis Reclaiming History, the John McAdams website, and the Dave Reitzes website (in particular, his link http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html ). I hate to break the news to the healthy skeptics, but the answers are all there. There is no more you really need to come to the same conclusionsif you use logic and not fantasy to do so.

My own journey to discover the truth took off during my college years. After all, the event occurred before I was even born, but I was lucky enough to be aware of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), JFK the movie, and Posners book of 1993. I was fortunate to visit the Henry Ford Museum to view the Presidential limousine during this time. I read John K. Lattimers book Lincoln and Kennedy: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations. During this time, on the 30th anniversary, TIME-Newsweek put out a summary of the latest-released evidence, and they came to the conclusion that there was no overt conspiracy but that many missteps and uncertain moves in the days, weeks, and months following the assassination by various Government agencies led to a cottage industry in conspiracies. I left this period of my study of it doubtful, like many of you, that the case was open and shut. JFK had a big influence on me at the time; it was too delicious a story to ignore. The circumstantial evidence seemed there. Garrisons Quixote made for a breathless character to follow in a highly thrilling legal-political drama. The climactic courtroom scene is high dramatic tension (even though much of it is a fiction).
But many years later I wondered: The truth must be out there. What really happened at Dealey Plaza? I needed to look no further than my own small library of JFK books, starting with the Warren Commission Report. I had a copy of it and was determined to read it. And my first question to any of you debating this issue is: Have you even read the report, cover to cover? If you havent, your arguments hold little weight with me, and your arguments are little more than grasping for snowflakes coming down in a snowstorm, selecting only those with a certain crystalline structure so you can make a snowman of your own choosing.

I started by reading the WCR and, reading it closely and following their methods, ignoring anything that has ever been said about the report or its authors, it very clearly states, in over 800 pages, that Oswald had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime, and commit it he did.

One way to solve a crime like this is to start by looking at the evidence before us, in this case, the fatal headshot. The fact that there was no entrance wound to JFKs head in the front or side is indication that under no circumstances whatsoever was there a shot from the front (either directly or from a quadrant, i.e. the Grassy Knoll) or side. I can also confirm this positioning because I visited Dallas on the 21st and 22nd of this month, on the 45th anniversary, and took a couple hundred photos, all told, of Dealey Plaza, including standing on top of the pedestal where Zapruder and Sitzman took their film. For example, the second white stenciled X in the center lane of Elm St.265 feet from the (former) TSBD sixth-floor window, marking the fatal head shotis not in any way lateral to a potential shot from the Grassy Knoll or the decrepit wood picket fence lining what is now the public parking lot next to the Sixth Floor Museum. I am not the first to state this, obviously, but I will repeat it: There was no shot(s) fired from the front of Kennedy. It simply did not happen.

This immediately blows a hole in the sub sect of conspiracy believers who think there was a second or third shooter, particularly anyone from the Grassy Knoll/fence area. It simply did not happen that there was a frontal or front-quarter shot. Examination of JFKs head wounds, coupled with a basic understanding of rifle ballistics, shows that he suffered a wound inflicted from the rear and above.

Likewise, this business of the magic bullet theory is silliness. Presumably following Oliver Stones lead, one of the posters here shows a graphic of a misaligned Connally and Kennedy, indicating that the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet had the ability that no other bullet in history ever had, that of turning in mid-flight, with no force acting on it. Its nonsensical on two levels. For one, Connally was not positioned inboard of Kennedyhe sat directly in front of him. Secondly, its pure nonsense from a physics perspective: Newtons First Law does not get violated to satisfy the whims of conspiracy buffs.

Perhaps the terming of CE 399 as being pristine is a bit of a misnomer, but when you consider that the bullet is relatively undisturbed after hitting not one but two targets, still retaining its basic shape with some torsion and/or flattening, it is a fairly accurate assessment. The nature of the wounds to both Kennedy and Connally are completely consistent with the bullets entry and passage through Kennedys upper torso, entering Connally and exiting his right ribcage below the nipple, tumbling end over end (as bullets often doone reason the M855 5.56mm ball round for the M16A1 was so deadly in the Vietnam conflict), shattering his right wrist and embedded into his left thigh with enough residual velocity to lodge itself just beneath the surface. Again, this bullet came from nowhere but behind and above.

Furthermore, bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine were concluded to be taken from the head shot; there were also both a cracked windshield and a dent in the framing, both of which have been analyzed and proven to show that bullets came from behind and above.

Further still, when the M-C rifle was discovered, not only were Oswalds palm and fingerprints found on the gun, but fibers from his shirt were caught in the buttstock. Still not convinced? The receipts and mail order form(s) to Kleins Sporting Goods of Chicago and the company in California that sold him the 4X scope have been conclusively determined to be Oswalds. Not only that, upon his arrest, when tests were done of Oswald, they were positive for having recently fired a weapon (although it has been mentioned by a reputable source that the paraffin test done on Oswald was of dubious value and may have had more to do with intimidating him and gathering more evidence against him than anything). Furthermore, in one of the WCRs appendices , they outline that Oswald and Oswald alone paid for the purchase and the S&H charges for both the rifle and scope and the .38 Special revolver used to kill Officer Tippit. These weapons were Lee Harvey Oswalds, to the exclusion of all others!

As for the shots being so difficult that a mediocre marksman like Oswald couldnt make them, thats rubbish too. Speaking as a shooter and hunter over my lifetime, and having examined Dealey Plaza extensively over my two days there, as well as taking a perch next to the snipers nest at 12:30 pm on the 22nd (during my tour of The Sixth Floor Museum), it is very easy to see that such shots were not particularly difficult, especially if you have a patient, trained shooter with sufficient bracing, which Oswald certainly had. The distances in person seem much less than they often appear in film and photographs (and which makes standing where Mary Moorman stood even more hideous to contemplate). With the exception of the one or two large trees beneath the TSBD (which have grown steadily larger in the past 45 years), the view down Elm Street (and even Houston Street) is quite clear. At ranges of less than 100 yards and with a 4X scope, the target of JFK in the Presidential limousine was quite clear, steady, and large.

Oswald applied foron the suggestion of a friend of a neighbor who knew he was out of work and having trouble finding it (no surprise considering his lifelong antisocial personality and narcissistic tendencies, about which there is too much to say in this space)and got the job at the TSBD in the middle of October prior to the White House even announcing a trip to Texas, much less Dallas. The motorcade route had not even been published yet.

Oswald has been shown to be more than prone to violence, even going so far as to make an attempt on the life of General Edwin A. Walker, an ultra-right wing agitator who had coincidentally been relieved of command by JFK for inappropriately passing out propaganda to his subordinates. As Oswalds life became increasingly frustrated and his hatred of both democratic and Communist systems of government intensified, he began to see himself as larger than life. Having been diagnosed with and/or described as having paranoid fantasies and manic-depressive tendencies, he was ripe for an act of this sort. He had long claimed he was going to be seen in the future as a radical ahead-of-his-time individual and had long wanted to make a great act to prove his weltanschauung.

Oswald, therefore, had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit a crime. Furthermore, the business of his time in New Orleans and Mexico City prior to the assassination has been shown to produce no evidence whatsoever of shadow forces and figures such as Guy Banister, David Ferrie, or the like. Any and all connections to these and other like individuals have been shown to be false.

Once you understand these basic facts, much of the conspiracy nonsense melts away. There was no team of shooters, no triangulated crossfire, none of that. The three tramps story has been debunked, as has the body double/imposter line of attack. The business of the Mob, Castro, the Cubans, the CIA, the FBI, Clay Shaw, the military-industrial complex being behind itwhile all of it makes for great cloak-and-dagger drama, not one bit of it is true. No one can produce any proof whatsoever that these agencies, acting alone or in concert with others, had anything to do with JFKs assassination.

I write this because even though I was not born or around during JFKs time, all of my study of this man has produced a highly complex, interesting, charismatic, and commanding portrait, but most of all, it is an inspiring one. I write this because I am inspired by JFK and because, as a mathematician-scientist-engineer, I detest feeble attempts at logic and flabby or lazy reasoning, and the sloth of non-research, and am tired of hearing it. I am fairly offended by people who dont do their homework, whether its rightwing wackos whose sole source of information is a radio gasbag or leftwing DUers who cant get it through their thick skulls (no pun intended) that JFK was killed by such a rightwing wacko, all by himself. Perhaps Bugliosi is right to write a book entitled Reclaiming History: We must, if we are to truly honor JFK and his achievements, put an end of this conspiracy nonsense and move on with life. We cannot be slaves to silliness and bogeyman stories, or else we are no better than those this board regularly denigrates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthbeknown Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #99
109. What a crock!!!
While you are buying the Govt. line, I got some swampland in Fla. for you also, real cheap like your reading material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #99
114. You read 800 pages of the Warren Report--???
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 09:21 PM by defendandprotect
Wow ...!!!

How about the actual 26 VOLUMES of the "investigation" ... ??????

Meanwhile ...

See the autopsy report for location of rear wound --

It was in JFK's RIGHT SHOULDER at a 45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE

and had NO OUTLET -- having been repeatedly probed by Finck ...


Neither did the neck wound have an outlet -

And Dallas Emergency room doctors confirm it was a wound of entry --

Ergo -- no Magic Bullet.


Finck: "Looks like half of his brain is gone. Who's in charge?

Admiral Kinney?"



FBI reported Oswald's prints were NOT on the rifle when found --


Oswald also passed paraffin test -- no residue on his cheek --

Further ... the rifle had to be REPAIRED/ADJUSTED BEFORE IT COULD EVEN BE TESTED--!!

The SCOPE was NOT attached on one side and could NOT be used---!!!



Brig. General George Walker was FIRED by JFK for distributing r-w propaganda to

military --

Walker also led riot at Ole Miss -- see James Meredith -- and was charged with

"insurrection" -- and psychiatric assistance recommended.


Evidently, all the other side has is lies and more lies ---!!!




PS: TUNNHEIM Panel/1992 JFK ClassifiedvRecords Act reported --

"OSWALD WAS ENPLOYED BY CIA WORKING ON HIGH LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS

AND PROBABLY ALSO FOR FBI."













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mfeher1971 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #114
120. There was no George Walker.
Likewise, LHO was never ever employed by the CIA. Again, RIF (Reading Is Fundamental).

Let's play a game: You produce an allegation and the corresponding evidence to go with it. Let's start with your claim that LHO worked for the CIA. I would like for you to produce for me, even allowing for the holiday, the documents which unequivocally show he was employed by the CIA. I'd like to see an employment application, test results and evaluations, Government forms, and pay stubs. Also acceptable are accounts of agents and other persons who worked with LHO during his supposed time in the Agency. You've been given an assignment now it's up to you to complete it satisfactorily. Got it?

See, the problem we have with the CTers is not that they have a *different* belief system -- you can believe what you want, so knock yourselves out -- but that they promulgate pure unsubstantiated fantasies. What's worse is that they believe in a sort of 'research equivalence' i.e. that every source you have at your disposal is equally credible as those who understand the conclusions of the WCR et. al. Jim Marrs is not a Vincent Bugliosi. Sadly, this is what makes a great conservative: the ironclad conviction of "don't confuse me with the facts, what I feel is right". Stephen Colbert parodied it with the term truthiness: The truth is whatever you feel it is. You're trying to tell me the sun is green each day that it rises in light of incontrovertible evidence suggesting otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #120
148. Of course, we were talking about r-w fanatic Edwin Walker ...
Wake up --!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #99
116. The evidence is overwhelming, as you point out.
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 11:37 PM by stopbush
Yet, the CTers stick their fingers in their ears and shout to drown the din.

Strange how the CTers remind me of the Black Knight from Python's Holy Grail: as each piece of evidence removes a CT limb, they scream that it's only a flesh wound.

One point of contention with what you wrote: Connally's jump seat was inboard 6" from the side of the limo and about 3" lower than JFK's seat. The photographic evidence confirms this, as does CE 872 of the WCR. Viewed in the correct alignment, it is easy to see that a bullet entering JFK in the back and exiting through his neck had nowhere to go BUT into Connally. If the victims are erroneously aligned as they are in every CT (ie: Connally seated directly in front of JFK, aligned dead center to each other), then the bullet that exits JFK cannot hit Connally.

As I pointed out earlier, most of the CTers have never read the WCR. Sadly, they take the word of people who distort facts, omit details and outright lie about the real evidence. They enable the liars who are making a living besmirching history while effectively assassinating JFK over and over again.

Thanks for your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mfeher1971 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. Thank you for the clarification.
I had reread my post several times today - I think it took about three hours all told, including finding proper citations - and spotted the error after the post. Regardless, I still feel that the substance of my points have been clearly and persuasively made. I don't know why it's such a shock to these people to go and do actual research, unless they are comfortable in ignorance, or lack the literacy to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #118
122. Well, the JFK assassination is a religion to the CT crowd, and like religion,
beliefs trump facts every time. Facts are inconvenient when the "truth" of a given belief can be measured by the degree of fervor on the part of the believer.

So much wasted energy. So much fear and paranoia. And all because it seems that people who have an insatiable appetite and the TIME to read almost limitless amounts of CT dreck on the ills of the WCR and the "conspiracy" behind JFK's murder can't be bothered to take the 3 days necessary to read the WCR for themselves to form their own conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #118
149. Unfortunately the "evidence" was ordered held for 75 years --!!
Much of it destroyed -- as so many witnesses destroyed and whistle blowers --

NOT to mention destruction of ability to bring results of investigations as

our "free press" has been transferred into hands of right wing as overseen

by MOCKINGBIRD --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #99
234. Thanks for posting this.
Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
105. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #105
226. George de Mohrenschildt was friends with both Poppy Bush and Oswald.
Small world. The Baron's address book had contact info for George Herbert Walker Bush (Poppy) and Lee Harvey Oswald (Patsy).

Not many Americans know George Herbert Walker Bush was friends with George de Mohrenschildt, the only man known to have been friends with both Bush and Lee Harvey Oswald.

http://www.lizmichael.com/bushykno.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html

Perhaps one day the presstitutes will decide to perform their professional obligations and pick up on it, helping make America fast become a very different place. A place of Laws again.

Heres a website that may be of interest. It's one of the most difficult sites to navigate on the web. It's worth the runaround, with a treasure trove of all things de Mohrenschildt, including letters written to Poppy and documents linking Kissinger to Poppy and de Mohrenschildt.

http://www.ciajfk.com

Patriots owe a debt of gratitude to Bruce Campbell Adamson, its proprietor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
107. Bush Senior Killed JFK.. Bush Junior did 911... Not a conspiracy....fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #107
115. Agree --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mfeher1971 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #107
121. We'd all love to believe this, wouldn't we?
But really, do we need more of a reason to hate the Bush family?

Try this on for size: It's entirely possible, as much as any of us despise them, that the Bushes simply had nothing to do with the assassination. LHO was in no way connected to George HW Bush; he is never once mentioned in the 800-plus pages of the summary report. Also, not every document which comes out of the National Archives is some breathless blockbuster revelation. More than four million pages of documents and artifacts have been released pertaining to the assassination. Does the invitation to hear him speak at the Trade Mart lunch also constitute some sort of conspiracy? Perhaps the roast beef was going to be poisoned? Then the Bushes must be behind it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #121
150. Why would anyone "want" to believe something untrue--??
Few of us waste our time on personal animosity for Bush -- but we can clearly

see the huge destruction to international relations and the corruption of

government - every agency -- and "illegal" wars of aggression.

Those who have seen the classified documents -- The Tunnheim Panel -- state

clearly that "Oswald was employed by CIA working on high level assignments

and probably also for FBI."

Where to see that info ---??

Oops, another Discovery Channel documentary destroyed --

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #150
236. Lots of people believe things that are untrue. Untruth is the basis of religion, after all.
"Why" do people believe such things? For many reasons - fear of death, self loathing, insecurity or a simple desire to run with the crowd.

There are striking parallels between religious beliefs and JFK CTs, chief among them being the belief that the believer is privy to information that others don't have, coupled with the belief that such information can be accepted at face value without carrying the same burden of proof as anything else considered to be a fact. In the case of religious beliefs and JFK CTs, the mere assertion of a belief is considered to be just as good as an evidence-supported fact.

So, you tell me. Why do people wish to believe such things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
126. Happy Thanksgiving and a recommendation
For those of you who are tired of being ridiculed and referred to as a nut (on both sides of the debate) there is a site where lone nutters and conspiracy nutters work and theorize in harmonic civility.
Some of you are probably familiar with the site. I consider it's members an elite and seriously dedicated group and do not wish to give out the name as I don't feel they'd appreciate potentially thousands of Duers crashing their server. feel free to PM for the name.
Great wealth of info there. Years worth.
Cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
216. Rifle scopes still set for left or right-handed shooters ...
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 04:04 PM by defendandprotect
Telescopic sight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... a 4x rifle scope ... the possibility to tilt the scope up to 1 to the left or right. ... the left for right-handed people, right for left-handed) to allow ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescopic_sight - 90k - Cached

Ken Farrel-Scope Bases
... SCOPE BASES BEGINNING AT $150.00. Each set of scope ... All mounts are Weaver-style, left- and right-handed. Rifle scope mounts are true picantinny specs. ...
www.kenfarrell.com/index.html - Cached

Left-handedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... and/or safety mechanisms set up for manipulation by the right hand, and fired ... as to require the shooter to place the rifle against his or her right shoulder. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_handed - 99k - Cached

Lazzeroni Rifles
The Ultimate Mountain Rifle, as seen in Sports Afield magazine ... Right or Left hand available. Weight: 7.4 lbs. Barrel Length: 26" ...
www.lazzeroni.com/ct_rifles.htm - Cached

Mounting a Rifle Scope
I set the trigger just under 2.5 pounds, and then I mounted the scope. ... Left-handed rifles usually look weird to me, so I've reversed the next few ...
www.larrywillis.com/mountingascope.html - Cached

GSP Rifle Conversion Kit This exclusively available kit was designed by ...
Walther Firearms and Accessories, Earl's Repair ... Specify Right-hand or Left-hand. $ 125. ... high or extra high custom rings for scope mounting. Set of ...
www.carlwalther.com/gsp_rifle.htm - Cached

Surfing for a new scope
... considering a new scope for a rifle last week, I set aside the heartless TV ... Being right-handed and left-brained means that while my right hand is gripping ...
www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/Surfing_for_a_ne... - 99k - Cached

MORE...
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=setting+rifle+scope.+l...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #216
217. Yeah, you just don't get it, do you?
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 05:26 PM by stopbush
The point is that Oswald's rifle was designed to operate for a right-handed shooter. That means that the shooter squeezes the trigger with his right hand and operates the bolt with the right hand. The bolt is mounted on the right side of the weapon. The site on Oswald's MC was mounted to the left side of the rifle because it couldn't be mounted on the right side of the rifle. Do that, and it renders the bolt inoperable - ie: the site is in the way of the bolt being raised to eject the shell.

For Oswald's rifle to have been "adapted for a left-handed shooter" would have meant that the BOLT was relocated to the left hand side of the rifle, ie: to the left of the shooter's line of vision, enabling the shooter to pull the trigger and operate the bolt with his left hand, with his right hand on the barrel.

The CT nut author who started this myth assumed that a telescopic site mounted on the left side of a rifle meant that the rifle "had been adapted for a left-handed shooter." Pure idiocy, and the HCOA dealt with the idiocy in depth in its report. You continue to embarrass yourself by assuming that the mounting of the scope has anything to do with a bolt-action rifle being adapted for left-handed use.

BTW - if you had the sense to LOOK at the examples you posted, you would see a rifle "adapted for left hand use" at the link you provided: http://www.larrywillis.com/mountingascope.html . Here, the BOLT is on the LEFT SIDE of the rifle so a LEFT-HANDED PERSON can better operate the rifle. It has NOTHING to do with the mounting of the scope. Again, the BOLT on Oswald's rifle was on the RIGHT SIDE of the rifle. Oswald was right-handed.

It's just common sense.

Here's an exercise for you: if you are right handed, imagine that you're firing a gun that is left-hand oriented. Forget about the site, just concentrate on your RIGHT HAND holding the barrel, with your left hand pulling the trigger. Pretend to take a shot. Now, use your left hand to operate the imaginary bolt. Feel natural? Nope - and that's just how it would feel to a left-handed shooter trying to operate Oswald's right-hand UNADAPTED-FOR-A-LEFT-HANDED-SHOOTER rifle.

How much clearer does it need to be? Your own evidence disputes the myth you so fervently embrace.

You're an even bigger wing nut than Octafish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
221. Watched a special tonight on the DC called "JFK: Inside The Target Car"
They reproduce the kill shot from various vantage points and concluded that the kill shot came from Oswald's perch in the TSBD.

Now, I know the CTers will say it's all part of a conspiracy to reach a foregone conclusion, but the special did raise interesting questions for those who ascribe to the grassy knoll shooter. They are:

1. CTers say that the fact that part of JFK's skull landed on the trunk of the limo proves that the shot came from the front and that the bullet exited the back of his head. Yet, the very frames in the Zapruder film which show the skull fragment heading for the trunk show the VAST MAJORITY of JFKs head heading in the opposite direction, ie: up and towards the front of the limo. This in and of itself destroys the CT theory that ALL of the material must exit away from the entry direction of the bullet. To believe that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll is to believe that the MAJORITY of the material from JFK's head flew in the direction from which the bullet entered his head, and that only a small portion exited the back of his head. The CTers basic theory on this one disproves their own theory!

Funny, but I have missed anybody ever questioning the CTers on all that brain matter and skull that moved TOWARD the grassy knoll.

The bottom line is clear - in such a shot, matter flies in every direction, but the majority of the matter exits in the same direction as the exiting bullet, just as it did when Oswald hit the back of JFKs head and the bullet - along with most of the brain & skull matter - exited up and forward of JFK's head.

2. A shot from the grassy knoll would have produced a large exit wound in the left side of JFKs head. There is no such exit wound.

3. If shot from the grassy knoll, the bullet would have exited JFK and gone straight into Jackie, probably killing her.

So, what are the CT responses to the above?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #221
222. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #221
223. Producer has since admitted to flaws in the documentary
Briefly, one test was left out of the show.
There are a multiple other, er, holes in the documentary. (incorrect position of JFK and Jackie at what they claim Z312 would be, falsely claiming the SS photos were taken at 1 a.m. 11.22.63, or disclosing that the M/C bullets did not fragment)


"Q: So the bullets that hit the head did not fragment like Oswalds did?
Mack: No, and that was quite a surprise. Carcano bullets are military, metal jacketed bullets designed not to fragment upon impact. Oswalds did, but ours did not. We do not know why that happened."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. Thanks for the updated info.
Edited on Tue Dec-02-08 01:23 PM by stopbush
However, the questions I asked in # 221 aren't dependent on whether or not the bullets fragmented or not. I don't see that the "flaws" you've enumerated negate or answer those questions. For instance, anyone running an experiment need not prove that bone and soft tissue material will ALWAYS exit a head shot backwards toward the direction from which a bullet entered a head. One need not even prove that it is PROBABLE that it would happen. No, one need only prove that it is POSSIBLE that it would happen. Likewise, one need only prove that a Carcano bullet may occasionally fragment upon impact to account for the fact that Oswald's bullets did just that. Defects in manufacturing and age of the bullet could have something to do with it.

BTW - you're still free to answer my question in 221 if you like.

And, I'd appreciate a link to your source for that quote from Mack, who is the head of the TSBD Museum, correct? Was Mack the producer of the documentary, or is the producer "who admitted to flaws" someone else?

Thanks in advance for your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #223
225. I found Mack's comments etc at the DC website.
No need to bother supplying a link.

BTW - there's more to the story than you let on in your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #225
227. Thanks.
I am sorry that I couldn't respond sooner. My connection has been dismal today. I was wrong about Mack being a producer. He was a chief consultant who worked on the doc from beginning to end.

The major problem with the show is that the shooter was not allowed to shoot from other locations (Daltex, Depository roof and other floors, drain pipe areas, et al) There are other problems but I am having puter issues today. BTW, Discovery removed the Youtube video that I was referencing.


The real problem remains the fact that the last two shots were a split-second apart from one another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMiDLIW0wqI

I don't believe that CTs or LNs have ever suggested what appears to be obvious in that video and the Zapruder film: that Connally was shot after the fatal head shot to JFK.

I'd be curious as to your take on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #227
229. Thanks for the response.
Edited on Tue Dec-02-08 07:20 PM by stopbush
To set the record straight, the sharpshooter they hired for the special scoped shots from a number of different places, ie: the most likely places where the shots could have been taken and still have been effective. From what I heard and saw while watching the show, the producers were willing to let the sharpshooter try the shot from wherever he wished. It was the shooter who ruled out taking a shot from various vantage points like the grassy knoll on the other side of Dealey Plaza, saying that the probability of making such a shot was next to impossible. For example, he ruled out the shot from near the overpass as he would have had to shoot through the windshield to hit the target, and that obviously didn't happen.

As far as the video you linked to, the analysis is very misleading. The fourth head shot wasn't included in the documentary for the simple reason that the shooter missed the target area, striking the head near the center, rather than on the side. The producers and Mack agreed that this shot was errant enough that it didn't represent where the bullet actually struck per the autopsy photos and the Z film, which was a grazing shot in comparison to the missed shot of the 4th test. That said, they are including the 4th test in the DVD version of the show. I guess they can do that as they'll have more than an hour and no commercial breaks to worry about.

Also, the test shot from the grassy knoll is also deceptively represented in the YouTube excerpt in that it does NOT show the huge exit wound that this particular shot created on the other side of the head, an exit wound that doesn't appear on JFK's head. The person who created this video is being EXTREMELY selective in what he is choosing to show from the documentary to the point of deception.

As far as when Connally was shot - how do you come up with AFTER the kill shot to Kennedy? Z clearly shows Connally grimacing at the point of the second shot, slumping toward his wife afterwards. The second and third shot are at least 6 seconds apart.

Sorry, but I'm not following you on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #229
231. another Zapruder version
I meant to give you this link in the post above. Watch beginning at 2:45.

The rapid succession testimony combined with the real-time imagery is compelling. (of course if you reject the eye/earwitness accounts this won't perk your interest much.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8_kIDP4EQ0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
228. Why must we find the WWI vets?
>It is no pipe dream. There are veterans of World War I still among us. Therefore, we must try to find them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #228
230. Good writing is good editing. Sorry to, seemingly, blame the wrong subject.
With your skills, deaniac21, you should start a journal. Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
233. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
235. Alternate Zapruder interpretation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #235
238. Watched it. Connally's testimony is compelling, but I'd wonder
if a guy being shot at and actually shot could remember the exact timing of when things happened.

The rest of the vid is entirely fanciful and a great interpretive leap of faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheUnspeakable Donating Member (960 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
237. kicking this today in light of all the J.E.B. posts
My God this family is the WORST enemy the US has ever faced ! For the doubters, take a step back and look at the big picture. What was the goal of JFK (and Bobby) for this country-what was the goal of the BFEE? Where are we now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Feb 27th 2020, 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC