and really america was never the same.

I was a college freshman and a JFK supporter. You are right, America was never the same....

and I'm with those that disagree with you. In any event give tribute to our President slain in Dallas 51 years ago-nufsaid.

Just one of many researchers to know better because of the omissions of the official story. Beyond this, when you say you have studied it deeply, I have to conclude you didn't go deep enough.

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black675a.mp3

You can think what you want about the podcast which is therefore supposed to represent my only research, but your assumptions would be the opposite of the truth. I assume you listened to it? Oh well…

I was born 10 years before the assassination. I'm an experienced person formally educated, but fairly well read about the state of affairs post WWII as it relates to presidential administrations. If you know anything about JFK, then you can surely defend who and what you know past the claim that you've interviewed someone, especially if you staunchly revealed evidence based on that laughable piece of garbage from Bugliosi. He was better off trying to convince us what he thought was Manson's motive for the Tate/La Bianca murders in Helter Skelter. What tripe.

So, I hoping you have a better frame of reference than Vince Bugliosi… Hopefully you're encouraged beyond that long drink of a book - many pages, poorly researched highly insulting to the first generations of investigators and contradictory. Do you know who the first generation of authors were and what they did to drill down to the real questions of that single bullet theory of Arlen Specter's? Which of those titles can you discuss? Have you read anything, or do you just prefer to interview people? Because if that is the only reference, I know you might want to add a few more books on your reading list.

Absurdly, Bugliosi's book, which I had hoped would not leave out important components in it's great length, had nothing but scorn for the critics of the Warren Commission, stating the Kennedy's murder was a "simple case". He then goes on to provide examples of complex issues pertaining to the assassination, including how the seven investigations into the President's murder from from 63 to 98 differed in opinions on various pieces of evidence, such as whether or not the single bullet theory was true, how the Church Committee in the 70's came to the conclusion that the FBI and the CIA had withheld important documents from the Warren Commission. So, after that conclusion, it's simple?

If you have interest in transparency of what is withheld from the American people, then you might want to do more homework.

Good luck.

Oh, wait. I think you are not prepared to throw out terms before laughing at what you write.

Waiting for you to answer. If you have no answers to my questions, then, waste internet time with someone else. In other words, put up or STFU.

Since you can only make little gas like noises with acronyms at this point, it's time to say hello to my ignore list.

Good luck with growing your knowledge base.

Anyone who looks at the photos of JFKs brains being blown out onto the back of the limo and believes the shot came from that direction is blind to the laws of physics.

And there is no science that says it could happen that way.
A mass in motion does not transfer that motion against itself...but that is all I have to say about it.

and the majority of his brain matter went forward also. It's on the Zapruder film. No con artist with a book deal can change that fact.

But the reason Jacki went on the trunk of the care was to retrieve a part of his brain...that is on the film too.

In slow motion, it is even clearer. Much of his brain matter ended up in the front of the inside of the car. And in slow motion, you can see his head jerk forward at bullet impact. His head then went back afterwards, which was caused by muscle contractions due to the brain damage.

But that is bullshit of the first degree...I have seen it is slow motion and frame by frame...and it is clearly a shot from the front...but I guess my eyes lie.

From William Seger's post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=4947

Here are frames 310 through 317:


It's also clear when watching the film at normal speed: the shot came from behind.

That people can look at that and see what they want to see.
I see a clear shot to the front part of the head and you see the head move back...and you want to tell us that the head always moves in the direction of the force applied?...

But I have argued this before in the dungeon, and I heard the same crap then too...one said the head jerked back because of a nervous response...another said the head actually moved forward and presented evidence that was total bullshit...

It is a waste of time, because you will always insist that your eyes are lying to you and the truth is in the Warren commission report...why that is so is another fascinating question...and will do so with absolute certainty and mum-bo jumbo rational.

but anyone else can see that JFK's head clearly went forward at bullet impact.

But I will not waste my time telling you about it.

When someone tells me to see things that are not there I just give up...but if it works on some then you have that.

Back… and to the left….

which showed JFK's head moving forward at bullet impact. He was shot on somewhat the right side of his brain so the involuntary contraction of his muscles would have been on his left side. This caused his delayed back and to the left motion.

He was shot, as the Abraham Zapruder film clearly shows and there were eye witness on that shot that came from the front, blowing off his ear with half his brains shooting as he CLEARLY was jolted back and to the left.

Watch the actual film, and read something other than McAdam's website. Do you own homework. Gunshots from the front do not cause involuntary contractions of muscles that way. Forensic evidence is your friend.

His head went forward first. That is a proven fact.

Your point applies to the 911 towers collapse just as easily yet none dare say anything lest they be declared irrelevant because "conspiracy theory"!

No matter how good your card may be it trumps it all.

who might not buy whatever story or stories are concocted to 'splain' to us what we are supposed to see.

The words themselves, CT, always make me wonder about those USING THEM since I found out how it was determined that this was a way to try to marginalize people.

So I dismiss them completely, other than to wonder 'are they just blindly repeating the propaganda, or are they part of it'? And I KNOW I am not alone.

… and I know we are not alone.

It's rather interesting that 80% of people early on in the 1960's were not ready to believe the lone gunmen single bullet theory. As we find out later from the assassinations review board (AARB), they shared in that belief. Yet, we have records of Oswald locked away under the guise of "national security" to this day.

It's truly sad that so much of the internet search engines bring up this tripe, devoid of the information of Jim Garrison, the only prosecutor to bring a trial against those who were part of that conspiracy.

The guy that did the original analysis of the Zapruder film has admitted that he made a mistake and the shot came from the back.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017159342
Sorry science wins, preconcieved notions spin.

the 'official' report. Common sense and science say that what we were told and expected to believe, was beyond unscientific, it was more like a, well, a cover up.

I don't know what happened, but the story we were told, makes no sense at all.

And the more people learn and read, the less sense it makes.

witnesses. I wasn't there, and neither were the Warren Commissioners. But many of those who were gave a different account of what they saw and heard that day.

and soon November 22 will be just another day because all of us who remember will have left this mortal plane.

It was a time in which the Red Scare was overwhelming common sense and decency. The Red Scare may have been justified by the horror that was going on in and around the Soviet Union and China, but it was way beyond reasonable.

Our intelligence agencies were very proactive around the world from Iran to Guatemala. The CIA had fought for the property rights of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala and it is believable that it might have wanted to avenge the disaster that was the Bay of Pigs. We will never know. There are maybe a dozen possible reasons for wishing to end the life of John F. Kennedy.

For Oswald, an alleged madman, to have obtained enough information about Kennedy's likely path through the city, to have obtained a gun, to have had some of the friends he had, to have lived in the Soviet Union, to have flown a U-2, etc. etc. and THEN to have been killed as he was by Jack Ruby? That story is worth of a dime novel. Sometimes the most incredible coincidences happen, but considering the politics and paranoia in some circles of the time, it does not seem likely to me that JFK was killed by a lone, insane assassin.

I've known a lot of pretty crazy people in my life. But if Oswald acted alone, he was not crazy. It took a lot of planning and a steady personality to do what he did. It was not the act of an impulsive person.

I don't know who did it or what happened, but I do not believe the official story.

He worked at the Texas School Book Depository and the route was published in both Dallas Papers on Nov 19th. He already had the gun and had already attempted an assassination with it.

Oswald did have to be the type of person who would not tense up too much when under pressure - or the type who didn't see shooting the POTUS as an inherently stressful situation, or a mix of both. I think it's the latter, iow, kinda nutty. As all biographies of the man seem to indicate.

The scheme was quite complex, involved timing and then the murder of Oswald on top of it all -- too many coincidences. Coincidences do happen, but there were just too many in that situation.

perhaps guided by others. Too many coincidences.

Remember, his assassination was not an isolated event. Even looking at assassination attempts, three Kennedys died under unusual circumstances. And Ted Kennedy's car went off the road at Chapadaquick.

Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and others were assassinated within maybe a 10-15-year period. Too many coincidences.

Every "Oswald was set up" narrative I've heard has no explanation there...

It would have taken a lot of planning and cunning to organize the whole thing.

The alternative theories explaining the assassination don't make good sense to me either.

If it is true that Kennedy was planning to rein in the CIA, that could have been a motive for the assassination.

There is just very little trustworthy information out there.

And too many coincidences and assassinations in the years following the Kennedy assassination.

Yeah ok.

Ruby pretended to be a journalist at the "midnight press conference" at Dallas police HQ. He revealed intimate knowledge of the anti- and pro-Castro organizations.



Tied to the Mafia, rabid anti-communists, gun running to Cuba and the Dallas establishment — Jack Ruby during a late-night press conference stated: “He belongs to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee” to correct a reporter who had asked District Attorney Wade whether it was true that Oswald belonged to the “Free Cuba Committee?” If Ruby shot Oswald on the spur of the moment, how is it he knew so much about his intel work? (“Spy Saga” by Philip H. Melanson; “Rearview Mirror” by William Turner).

I remember it well. We lost so much that day, a lot more than just a mans life thats for sure. I'd like to believe there is a heaven and President Kennedy was there

All I know for sure is his memory lives on in many of our heart

Look where we are today, corporate fascism-21st Century Feudal States.
Woe.

the "powers that be", and so was RFK and MLK. JFK is my hero, as well as FDR.

would be mine as they were alive during my lifetime doing the good work of good people. Trying to make a difference only to be cut short.

For the record I don't believe the official story on these murders/assassinations either

check out Dealy Plaza and the book depository. Everything is way smaller and way closer than it looks on teevee

We lost a great president that day, the country really hasn't ever recovered from the assassination. I believe Americans

realized there was a conspiracy and that it was much larger than the government.

Looking at the window the street and the X where he got hit and concluded a cowboy could make the shot.

It is not the weapon it is the killer. The rifle was a piece of crap with an unsighted scope that Oswald allegedly fired multiple times in a few seconds to deadly success.

I am not convinced Oswald was that deadly. The Zapruder film clearly shows otherwise to what the Warren Commission concluded.

I would not complain so much if so many key figures and possible witnesses who could burn down the Warren case died in suspicious suicided cases.

read Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Not for the faint of heart, Buglisoi's 1,000+-page book examines the work of the Warren Commission in exhaustive and minute detail and ultimately concludes that the WC pretty much got it right about LHO as a lone assassin with no conspiracy before- or after the fact. Along the way, Bugliosi takes up most of the mainstream conspiracy theories and deconstructs and demystifies each with a clinical precision that is often lacking in the discussion.

I used to believe in a version of the CT put forward by, among others, Oliver Stone in JFK. After I read Bugliosi's book, though, I have been forced to confront my own unscientific and prejudiced thinking and replace it with a solid reliance on the evidence.

the truth, no matter where it may lead.

lock and key for 75 years? Something stinks!

but you really owe it to yourself to do so.

I don't think "everything (was) put under lock and key for 75 years." The Texas School Book Depository, for example, is now a museum and shrine, as I understand it, to the events of November 22, 1963 (and thus open to the public).

has been open at least since the early 1990's, when I visited.

just that..a building that doesn't say much about what happened in it. You can look at the floors and the walls until kingdom come and it won't tell you a damn thing.
The written stuff that matters like about Oswald getting assassinated, Ruby info, reports from experts, etc. that are all important to studying the case are locked up. Not just locked up, but locked up for a period of 75 years. That says a lot in itself.
Bugliosi has as much info to work with as the rest of the schmucks who write tomes about it. No more, no less. What counts is what they can't see.

while in the process of writing the book and\or preparing for the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This includes interviewing members of the part of the WC specifically tasked with finding any evidence of conspiracy or foreign involvement. Not only did Bugliosi not find anything suggesting conspiracy, the members of that section of the WC -- who would have had great incentive to uncover conspiracy, as it would make their political futures -- were unable to find any evidence of conspiracy.

So unless we're going to say that the WC itself became part of the conspiracy after the fact, its own staff tasked with finding such evidence found no evidence of a conspiracy.

Its a good book but just one of 100s of books on the subject

Yes

remains intact after Bugliosi is done deconstructing and dismantling it? And what is the basis for your belief?

Time in which most persons living at the time would be dead.
This is something that always bothered me.

stuff. Why is it under lock and key.

can't remember the author, but reading it I was struck by the fact that the three people that Hoover hated the most, Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, were all successfully assassinated. And Hoover was uniquely placed to plan it and have it done. Hoover also had the idea that only he really could decide who was a real american, and who was a danger to the country. I believe he did it, using an FBI agent or two.

as the next person, not least for what he did to Martin Luther King, Jr., but even I have to draw a line somewhere and say, "This much and no further."

"smoking gun" on HBO.

And apparently, all sorts of tests show that a bullet entering a head from behind will cause exactly the backward explosion seen in the Zapruder film.

The Oliver Stone movie contains some hilariously bad information. Toward the end the Donald Sutherland character is talking to someone and presents the near collapse of the phone system as proof of conspiracy. Well, I can tell you that back then, with the relatively limited number of landlines in existence, any time too many people tried to make a phone call, available lines would all be used up and you wouldn't get a dial tone. It used to happen every year on Mother's Day. I used to be a long distance operator, and we were quite familiar with the problem. And almost every single person in the country was trying to call someone else as soon as they got the news of the assassination, so it was far, far worse than a typical Mother's Day.

from each. At its heart, though, it's based on the fallacious notion that JFK planned to withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam after his re-election, that somehow the Pentagon and CIA got wind of his plans and decided to take JFK out so they could "have their war."

The reality is that JFK had made no such decision and, in fact, was trying to keep his options open on Vietnam until after the 1964 election. True, he might have concluded that Vietnam was a lost cause after the 1964 election and pulled all advisors out. But he might equally have bought the line adopted by his successor LBJ that only a conventional land invasion and occupation could save Vietnam from being the first domino in the string of dominos to fall.

Remenber Western Union? Before it became a money-laundering venture, WU paralleled telephones with its telegraph service. The telegraph suffered no such jam-ups on Nov. 22, 1963, a surefire sign of a critical oversight among the putative conspirators!

Rfk, MLK, 9/11, Iran/Contra,Nixon, The Iranian hostages, Clintons election, Obama's birth and all the other crap, etc etc etc.
And any proof to the contrary is looked at as "faked by the ______"
Its ridiculous

There really was a conspiracy to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

There really was a conspiracy to sell arms illegally to Iran to raise funds to send to the Contras, circumventing laws prohibiting such funds.

The Warren Commission report was crap. Oddly its boosters have the same opinion about the later, far more extensive and open House inquiry that reached quite a different conclusion.

And yes,the Iran Contra as its named DID happen, but some think it in itself was a coverup for another secret operation.

at least one of which reached to the top levels of government, involved multiple actors in multiple agencies, and as we have now learned, did in fact also include using cocaine shipments into the US as part of the funding mechanism. So we know that our government will engage in conspiracies that are massively ethically compromised, that certainly other government and non-government agencies will also do so - see for example 9/11, but it is somehow unthinkable and ridiculous to even consider that JFK, RFK, MLK could have been assassinations carried out for political purposes by anyone other than the lone gunmen charged with each of those crimes.

There are conspiracy nuts alright - on both sides if the fence.

Never happened, but the truth didn't stop 59,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese from dying.

Never heard of that Clinton election one... what was that about?

(I assume by 9/11, you mean other than the conspiracy already recognized.)

Why was Oliver North even arrested?

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind." - Ronald Reagan

You might want to read Jim DiEugenio's Reclaiming Parkland. It is a critique of Bugliosi's book.

I think highly of Mr. Bugliosi. But I disagree with the book's analysis. I find it troubling, for example, that he only mentions the eye-witness account of two of JFK's closest friends, in a footnote buried way in the back of the book. More, in attempting to discredit the pair, Vince argues that Tip O'Neil hadn't read the entire Warren Report -- which, even if true, had absolutely nothing to do with these two men (who were a couple cars behind JFK) seeing the gunman on the knoll. More, he fails to address the fact that the FBI told the pair that they should not be honest when speaking to the Warren Commission -- "for the good of the country."

in the accompanying CD wherein all the notes are sourced.

I read Bugliosi's book about 3 years ago, so I'm drawing a blank on the specific incident to which you allude. Can you provide a little more information? (Not looking to pick a fight, but Bugliosi's work should receive the same critical scrutiny as any other work of scholarship on the subject.)

I'm talking about Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell. They were two cars back. Both saw and heard what happened.

They were both willing to go along publicly with the Warren Commission until June of 1968.

what do Powers and O'Donnell allege that they saw and heard?

FWIW, Bugliosi is about as close to an 'honest broker' as I think we're likely to get. He came out with a book calling for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder (because of Iraq) that I found pretty darned compelling, even if no state Attorneys General or county D.A.'s would step up to the plate.

"allege." But they have said what they saw and heard -- a man with a rifle, shooting at JFK.

notoriously unreliable. But I also respect both of these men tremendously. What's your take on what they say they saw and heard? And what does Bugliosi make of it? (I checked the book out of our library, so don't have immediate access to it.)

in American history. I tend to be less interested in the "who?" and "how/," than the "why?" And when one focuses more on the "why," and looks at it in the larger context of political history -- rather than simply the American experience -- it provides a view that I consider to be of value.

It's important to note that Mr. Bugliosi, after retiring as DA, did work on a civil case that indicated RFK was the victim of a conspiracy. I've never heard Vince address his thinking on the MLK killing. But it would be interesting to hear.

A few years back, one of my favorite uncles became very sick, due to an infection he "caught" while in a good hospital, for minor surgery. He was a university professor -- science -- who got a national award from President Carter. Anyhow, one of his daughters came up to me after his funeral, and said that she wanted to share his "last words" with me.

She was with him in the hours before and while he passed. He was coherent. He had no fear of death, and was always trying to get his family to relax and accept it. So, he took her hand, looked her in the eye and said, "At least I'll find out who really killed JFK now," and died. She said that she knew then that she had to share that with me. Ha! These darned Irishmen.

Yeah, I've gone through quite literally the whole book & CD.

Also, I do not think of this discussion as an argument, or in any sense hostile. People are entitled to their own opinions.

There were a couple books published after Mr. Bugliosi's, that reach a very different conclusion than he did. Mr. Bugliosi has stated that he considers the pair to be serious investigators. Their work includes references to literally thousands of documents, released only after Vince's book was published. I know he still believes -- sincerely and intelligently -- that he was still correct. But even he recognizes that others see things differently -- though in his paid performances, while presenting in his theatrical manner (re: prosecutor) he tends to dismiss all critics. Bugliosi is a good man (he has an association with one of my uncles, who thinks the world of him).