JFK post: Just read JFK and the unspeakable. Have questions.

I have my tin foil hat on and am open minded, have been since Ruby shot Oswald.

If Oswald was just being set up,
Why did Oswald leave work, go home, get gun, shoot or not shoot Tippet, go to Movie, and not shoot the cops who came to get him?

I'm convinced about the second shooter from grassy knoll and the motive of the CIA or some guys who worked for the CIA but there are a few things that don't add up.

Thanks for your ideas. Will be looking for more on this now that the internet is packed with stuff.

I'm not clear on your question.

Did he suddenly realize the situation while having lunch at the Depository, get up and run out of there? Was he told to go to the movie house by someone? Even if there were another shooter, was he the shooter from the Depository? Or completely innocent? Just wondering what the state of the art is on these questions. Douglas's book is great, especially at showing the motivation of the CIA in wanting Kennedy out of there, but there is too much testimony to keep straight and get a decent scenario about actual events.

I believe Richard Case Nagell had tried to persuade Oswald that he was a patsy before shooting his gun into the ceiling at a bank so that he would get arrested so he couldn't be blamed for Dallas. Nagell's story is pretty amazing. Too bad he died of a heart attack one day before he was scheduled to testify to the ARRB and the his son's apartment was broken. He probably had the heart attack because of the shock caused by the guy who stole his storage keys and broke into his son's house that same night.

I only recently looked at the JFK assassination research after studying a lot about US foreign policy (CIA led coups and in particular).

I did not realize how much evidence there was to support the version of events depicted in Oliver Stone's JFK.

I also did not realize how many "suspects" eventually made pretty incriminating confessional utterances at the ends of their lives:

de Mohrenshildt
David Atlee Phillips
James Angleton
E. Howard Hunt
David Morales

And I did not realize how many government investigators from each investigation (Warren Commission, HSCA, ARRB) came to the conclusion that there was no way it could have been the work of one friendless, total loner, Marxist with a Italian Kmart rifle. You could argue that it's been 1984 since 11/23/1963.

You wrote : You could argue it's been 1984 since 11/22/63.

BINGO!

And you would win that argument hands down.

Officer Maurice N. "Nick" McDonald
Mr. McDONALD. . . . ust as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.

Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir; knocking my cap off.

Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?

Mr. McDONALD. His left fist.

Mr. BALL. What happened then?

Mr. McDONALD. Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.

Mr. BALL. Right hand?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.

Mr. BALL. Did you feel the pistol?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Which hand was -- was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?

Mr. McDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.

Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?

Mr. McDONALD. My left hand, at this point.

Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol.

Mr. McDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.

Mr. BALL. From his waist?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What happened then?

Mr. McDONALD. Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun --

Mr. BALL. Your left hand?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. Somehow I managed to get this hand in the action also.

Mr. BALL. Your right hand?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.

By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.

Mr. BALL. Had you felt any movement of the hammer?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. When this hand -- we went down into the seats.

Mr. BALL. When your left hand went into the seats, what happened?

Mr. McDONALD. It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap. I didn't know what it was at the time.

Mr. BALL. Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Do you know any way it was pointed?

Mr. McDONALD. Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation came across this way. To make a movement like that, it would have to be the cylinder or the hammer.

Mr. BALL. Across your left palm?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. And my hand was directly over the pistol in this manner. More or less the butt. But not on the butt.

Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?

Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point. . .

Very interesting. Thanks. Wondering why Oswald didn't just blow the cops away as they came up the aisle as, if the police were correct, he shot Tippet without hesitation. In rereading about this event, I was surprised to learn that Tippet was shot on the street, blocks from the theater. My memory had him shot in the theater. Douglass mentions a second arrest of a guy in the balcony of the theater, was there a police report of that? I don't know if I'm ready to spend the rest of my life reading about this and sorting it out, but right now I very interested in hearing a little more. Do you recommend a particular source for more info?

What is the significance of a high school diploma?

Trying to describe his encounter with the gun. I guess it was a lame attempt at a joke. Sorry.

His complete testimony is here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mcdonald.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5961

It certainly is interesting, rgbecker.

Here's more...

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

# The Tippit shells were marked at the scene by Officer J.M. Poe. The shells in evidence are not marked...
# An Oswald/Hidell wallet found at the Tippit scene and on Oswald and also on his dresser at home...
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black454b.mp3

# When did Oswald realize he was the patsy and was he at the Tippett murder?
# Did Oswald actually fight anyone in the Texas Theater or was he just roughed up?
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black447b.mp3

# When did Oswald realize he was the patsy?
# The Officer Baker(Oswald at the Coke machine) and the Texas Theater incidents
# Ruby at the police station
# How Oswald likely met Guy Banister
# The setting-up of Oswald
# Reasons why Ferrie was not a McGuffin
# The credibility of the Dallas police and the formation of the Warren Commission
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black445a.mp3

# Discussing the Oswald getaway vehicles: Bus?, Taxi?, Nash Rambler?...
# Jim sorts out the witness testimony. It may be a Nash Rambler...
# Pictures may exist of Oswald on the embankment and the Nash Rambler
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black438b.mp3


http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_6_review.html
http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html
http://www.ctka.net/

If I were you I'd work on this from a higher perspective ---

Here are a few great books on this, however --

High Treason I and II by Livingstone

Crossfire by Jim Marrs

They are older books -- but you can probably still find them in print or at your library.


As for higher perspective -- re magic bullet --

According to the official autopsy report . . .

JFK's neck wound was a wound of ENTRY with --NO OUTLET!!

Wound in JFK's back was in his right rear shoulder blad -- wound of ENTRY -- NO OUTLET!!

Further the shoulder wound was made at a 45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE!!

Now, put that together in your mind and you see that it's all lies --

There was no police report of the guy being arrested in the Balcony to my knowledge and trust me I have been looking into this for a long time.

Jim Di Has put a lot of effort into destroying Vince Bugliosi and he deals with Oswald in his review of Bugliosis god awful
book 'Reclaiming History'

Have a search on the website for the topic of Oswald, Tippit and the theater and see what you come up with.

Furthermore, Ian Griggs has done some fantastic stuff on Oswald and so to has Mark Lane. Read his defence brief of Oswald in his book "Rush to judgment" or look for it online its bound to be there.

Mike Griffiths is another good place to go. In fact I would check him out as a beginner he has some great stuff.

The Crux of the Oswald-Tippit caper is basically this.

Oswald left a Rifle clean of prints in a corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. He also left empty shell cases by the window and a blue jacket nearby. At the Tippet Crime Scene he left his wallet, and shell casings from his gun that were considered automatic by the first police on the scene. Now as you know Oswald had a revolver!!! Furthermore the cartridges found in the two seperate locations ie 10th & Patton and the Texas Theater weren't matches either some were Smith and Wessons and there were also a few Remingtons (off of the top of my head, I am in a bit of a rush gotta get to work!!!).

Fleeing the Tippit scene he then left behind another grey jacket (he had picked this up at his rooming house) underneath a car. This was not picked up by the guys who searched underneath the parked vehicles in hope of catching him hiding but was discovered by Captain Westbrook (who had discovered Oswald's wallet earlier). Now the problem with this is that Oswald had left his wallet at home that morning according to accounts and he never returned to get it. Yet Westbrook finds Oswald's Wallet (source James Hosty) and then when Oswald is pulled out of the Theater the cops supposedly pull another Oswald Wallet out of his Jean Pocket.

Thats 1 rifle. 2 Jackets and 3 Wallets and numerous cartridges. I mean about the only thing he didnt lose was his virginity and well we know that may well have been taken by some hookers in Japan whilst at Atsugi.

Now no one saw Oswald running onto the crime scene. They saw him (or someone like him) walk. The problem is that no one saw Oswald walking or running en route from his house to the area. When I walked it it took me 13:30 minutes and I am 6ft1 and was 30 at the time fit as hell and walked at a pretty full pace. Thus I had a Longer stride over Oswald for starters (Oswald was not known for being a jogger either in the marines or as a civilian).

Depending on what time you take or what you omit (Gary Mack and Dave Perry are horrific for this type of thing) It took Oswald some 9-10 minutes officially to reach the destination by their standards or they chop it some lone nutters say 6 0r 7.

No way Jose. Been there done that and got the T shirt.

What you will note is that to try and make this all plausible the Warren Commission made out that the streets were shorter in their diagrams and that Oswald was in reality a massive 60 ft black ball that went unnoticed rolling through the suburb of Oak Cliff.

turn to a CT echo chamber. Fucking unbelievable.

I've been reading through DiEugenio's supposed critique of "Reclaiming History". Have you ever noticed that his "sources" are other debunked CT's?

Oh yeah Jim has been sooooo discredited that Gary Mack, Dave Perry, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Reitzes and so on backed out of debating him. Lol oh and heres a good one, when McAdams eventually did (it took months for all these cowards to hide behind big daddy) he made Jim agree to all of these conditions and then, then the SOB broke all of his own rules he laid out.

Oh yeah and he got his ass kicked badly just look at the transcripts and the nasty snide pathetic things McAdams said when he was imploding.

Read the transcripts.

As for Jim bringing up already old discredited arguments.

Lol Oh my god you really believe that Jims the one doing that!!!!!!!!!!

If I talk in an echo chamber. Its by far preferable to the festering toilet you have to speak into.

well, now that's a surprise....

BTW, where's your physical evidence? Oh, wait...you don't have any! Do you guys honestly believe you're the only ones interested in the truth? Do you honestly think the members of the Warren Commission would become willing accessories-after-the-fact to JFK's murder??

You've had 46 years to crack this case. What are you waiting for?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...believes in a conspiracy to kill RFK. How do you reconcile this with your admiration for his work?

He must have forgotten that and accidentally wrote a 1600+ page (exclusive of footnotes and endnotes) book in which he maintains it WASN'T a conspiracy. It's good to know he has folks like you to set him straight.

Now, since you can't even manage to get basic facts straight, I think I'll quit wasting time responding to you so that you can devote yourself to correcting Vince.

Really? What is the name of 1600 page book about the assassination of RFK?

read "RFK" as "JFK". I'd like some documentation of your claim though.

He discusses this on pp. 550-552 of the endnotes to Reclaiming History. He says there is more evidence of a conspiracy surrounding the death of RFK than JFK, although that is not proof of a conspiracy - short answer.

duh.

Ya know dudeguy,your a real peice of work.
You attempt to make yourself out to be some scholar conspiracy skeptic,
yet you've done nothing but show your incredible arrogance, ignorance and closed mind
go away. no one cares about your opinion other than you.

Feel free to join the actual debate. That would require actual content, though.

It's pretty stupid to assume any of us "trust" the official story. You seem to think you guys are the only ones who have done any research.

As far as being "open-minded", do you think someone who asks for proof of claims before accepting them is "close-minded"? Does "open-minded" mean uncritically accepting something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Frankly, dude, when a "truther" reproaches someone for supposedly not being "open-minded", what's really going on is that the "truther" is frustrated because no one will buy their goofy bullshit without proof...of which they have none.

evidently Oswald was going to meet someone --

obviously, there would have always been contacts with handlers?

Oswald didn't shoot ANYONE as parafin tests showed --

not JFK -- not Tippet --

positive, as one would expect from an open-chambered revolver, as opposed to a closed-chambered rifle.

is why the paraffin test on his right hand was positive? Really? Perhaps you could explain that scientifically.

During his questioning Lee Harvey Oswald was administered a paraffin test by W. E. Barnes of the Dallas Police Department. In this test warm paraffin, which is applied to the skin to open up its pores, collects contaminants. If the suspect had fired a gun, one potential contaminant would be the nitrates from gun powder residue. Once the paraffin hardens, either diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine is introduced to the paraffin cast, which will turn it blue in the presence of nitrates. Thus, the presence of blue dots on the paraffin casts is evidence that the suspect had fired a gun.

A paraffin test was applied to Oswald's hands and right cheek; his hands reacted positively, whereas his cheek did not. Since shooting a rifle should have exposed his right cheek to gunpowder, the negative reaction is often cited as evidence that he did not fire a rifle. One such example of a writer citing this test as proof Oswald did not shoot a rifle is Oglesby, from The JFK Assassination: The Facts and the Theories, p. 283:
Nitrate tests performed on Oswald when he was arrested supported his claim that he had not fired a rifle in the previous 24 hours.
Mark Lane makes a similar assertion in Rush to Judgment, p. 149:
A positive response on both hands and a negative response on the face is consistent with innocence. It is also consistent with Oswald's claim that he had not fired a rifle on November 22.
And that treasure trove of conspiracy lore, Jim Marrs' Crossfire, makes a similar claim:
Another important piece of evidence involved a paraffin test made on Oswald the day of the assassination. The results of this test presented evidence that Oswald may not have fired a rifle that day, yet these results were downplayed and even suppressed by the federal authorities.

. . .

Oswald's hands both reacted positively to the paraffin test, indicating the presence of nitrates. But a cast of his right cheek showed no reaction. Any competent defense attorney would have pointed to this test as evidence that his client had not fired a rifle. (pp. 442-443)
The ballistic matches of bullet fragments and CE399 to C2766 showed that they all came from Oswald's rifle but say nothing about whether he actually shot it. And the paraffin test seemingly absolved him of that, right?

Wrong, as it turns out. Before the assassination, the FBI had conducted experiments showing the unreliability of paraffin tests. FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to this in front of the Warren Commission (3H487):
And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands.
It is evident that false positives and false negatives occur with the revolvers. After the assassination the Warren Commission directed the FBI to run the same experiment using the C2766 rifle and ammunition which was identical to what was found in the Texas School Book Depository. Cunningham related the results of that experiment (3H494):


WHAT MCADAMS DOES NOT MENTION IS THAT OSWALDS MANNLICHER CARCANO CONTRARY TO THE LIE THAT HOOVER AND THE FBI PULLED BY SAYING MORE OR LESS "IT'S SO GOOD A WEAPON THAT IT DID NOT DISCHARGE ANY NITRATES OR EMISSIONS". BILL TURNER TEST FIRED NUMEROUS MANNLICER CARCANOS AND FOUND THAT THESE PIECES OF CRAP SPRAYED OUT NUMEROUS RESIDUES ALL OVER THE THE FACE, ARMS AND HANDS OF THE SHOOTER.

SO IT REALLY IS A VERY BIG YAWN FROM ME AND JOHN MCADAMS LOL.

Jesus, your reading comprehension sucks. Nowhere in what I wrote am I am claiming the paraffiin test proves anything. I'm simply responding to the rather stupid claim that paraffin tests showed that Oswald had not fired a gun that day.

In fact, Oswald's hand tested positive. Why you would believe a closed- chambered weapon like his rifle would have made his cheek test positive is hard to comprehend. In the meantime, even the late EMK disses you guys.

46 years, dude. How long can your delusions last?

I'm not citing the paraffin test as conclusive proof of anything. Pay attention.

To think you got outdone by your very own John McAdams.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

no surprise there.

It is appalling that such a contemptible figure from American history is elevated into almost a tragic hero by the Critical Thinking Impaired, aka the CT'er "community."

:thumbsdown:

There are a number of sources for this info from the Secret Service to the

JFK 1992 Classified Records Act head, John Tunnheim.

The panel agreed unanimously that ...

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

PROBABLY ALSO FOR THE FBI"

Meanwhile, you're obviously not here to learn anything -- you're here to do what

you can only do -- be disruptive.

Which reminds me of the $1 million that Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt spent on trying to

internally mike a cat and having him circulate during a political cocktail party!

you'll see clearly that D&P's claim is utter bullshit.

better take on the Kennedy assassination - and has the added value of dealing in actual facts, as opposed to fairy tales about armed Leprechauns hiding out on grassy knolls.

http://www.ctka.net/pr396-davy.html

"Case Closed" author Gerald Posner, inadvertently confirms his CIA ties...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=490878&mesg_id=492367

VIDEO - Posner Lays An Egg

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10528

That was a good one, apocalypsehow.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Remember to use this :sarcasm: next time.

As mentioned in the post above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M9ff6FK-CM">

.. because he got a phone-number?

CTland. CT's aren't exactly known for rigorous standards of proof.

Here's the latest news on the ubiquitous Mr. Posner:

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2010/02/gerald-posner-admits-hes-guilty-of.html

consistently stymied on the facts, crave any such opening to talk about anything other than...their lack of facts.

What, pray tell, does this story of Posner's six-sentence plagiarism on a blog post regarding a crime in Florida have to do with "Case Closed," a book about which there is not a single allegation of plagiarism?

Nothing, of course: it's a McCarthyite-style tactic, and one which CT'ers have honed to perfection far beyond the wildest imagination of the late Tailgunner from Wisconsin when confronting their intellectual betters, i.e., their critics and any person with the critical thinking skills above that of a four year old child. Such honest, mature minds see it for what it is - and laugh. As I am now.

Posner's credibility is very much the issue. Although you have to hand it to Posner, as with Karzai's brother, he has always had incredible access...

How Gerald Posner Got Rich and Famous

Gerald Posner, the CIA, the Karzais, and a warning to Keith Olbermann

POSNER in New Orleans


http://www.ctka.net/pr798-posner.html

incredible access indeed.

Amy Goodman: Access of Evil
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/goodman

they attempt to discredit the messenger.

All the way to Dr. Mary Sherman --

Kennedy was shot from the front at frame 225 and Connally can be seen clearly reacting to it as it passes his head on the left side.

The apparent hole is circled right of the mirror. Notice jfk's hand below it and just below and left of his hand is a frothing defect. This pic was taken at frame 255, 1.5 seconds after Kennedy and Connally had been hit. Altgens, a press photographer took this pic.

Here's picture of a bullet hole that is strikingly similar to the apparent hole in Kennedy's windshield.

of the windshield of JFK's limousine, unless you can explain why pictures of the limo outside of Parkland show no bullet hole. In fact, don't you find it suspicious that the picture is cropped in such a way that you can't identity what car it actually is?

I didn't say it was. It's a picture off google that looks very much like altgens 255.

Well. then why did you include it?

To demonstrate how strikingly similar it is to a bullet hole that's been positively identified.

You haven't IDed a bullet hole in the actual windshield at all. You're playing games with pixels and illusions.

This is the obvious bullet hole taken 1.5 seconds after Kennedy and Connally had been hit by seperate bullets.

He took another pic as the limo drove away from the rear this time the equivalent of zframe 337. The defects next to the mirror are the same.

Then explain why CLEAR pictures of the limo's windshield taken at Parkland show no bullet hole. Was the windshield somehow replaced while enroute to the hospital at breakneck speed?

Please spare us your silliness, dude.

THERE ARE NO CRACKS VISIBLE AT PARKLAND. The first Altgens pic shows both defects and his second shows only the one by the mirror. Kooks say there's a wagon wheel crack at parkland but there is nothing to be seen with the naked eye.

Horizontal line maybe but no crack and certainly no frothy defect.


Altgens second pic showing the frothy defect near the mirror.

Bullet hole and defect taken at 255 by Altgens.

Until then, your post is a textbook example in how to create the illusion of a bullet hole. And that's not to say that you're doing this with malice aforethought. You're more than likely fooling yourself in exactly the same way.

Frame 255 that altgens took depicts a defect below the mirror and an apparent bullet hole just right of mirror. Those are facts that can only be ignored but still are facts. He took this pic only 1.5 seconds after jfk was hit in the throat from the front. I underexposed this pic and that makes the hole come out clearer which is the darkness in the middle. It is surrounded by a frothy white, totally consistent with a bullet hole.

Clear bullet hole from another car.

All you're doing is posting shadows and then an unrelated pictures to find what you want to find in the shadows.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_face_on_mars/index.html

stupid tactic...

"pareidola", dude. It's unbelievably stupid to claim anything in that picture is a "bullet hole".

Jesus.

I could NOT care less who thinks it's stupid but the facts say he captured the same defect in both pics five seconds apart. NO DOUBT AT ALL. It's the same defect in 255 and 337.

Frame 255 taken from front.

It's the same basic shape but taken from the opposite direction.

you're just chasing shadows in the pixels.

unless you have a clear picture of a bullet hole in the widshield of JFK's limo, your claim is laughable on it's face. Also, there are a series of CLEAR pictures of JFK's limo at Parkland, none of which show anything that is renotely a bullet hole. Do you know how to falsify your own stupid claims?

There are no visible cracks or holes which is of course is impossible unless they were taken out or it's not same limo.

remotely possible. This is a joke, right?

What the hell are you talking about? I posted altgens two pics and the parkland pic which shows no crack or hole.

And there WAS a bullet hole in the windhield. What, exactly, are you claiming now?

accidental dupe...

This is the official crack according to the goons. This crack has nothing to do with any defect visible in either 255 or 337. It's a small crack and would never show up like a frothing defect. It's also clearly right of the hole in 255. Arlen Specter threw a rock at this replacement windshield.LOL

Frame 255 taken after the bullet came through the windshield.

Frame 337 shows the same frothing defect seen in 255, therefore the crack is fake.

jesus,dude....

The pic anon gave to me seems to suggest the defect below the mirror in 255 should be seen in 337. The distance between the two supports that. Those flowers likely would not cover the entire defect.

255

337

The photographic evidence is unstoppable and no on this board will even attempt to debunk the basics of what it shows.

Frame 337 shows the same frothing defect shown in 255.

Most lone nuts seem to say there's a wagon wheel crack at Parkland but there is nothing. So, they are lying because it was decided that there must be something on the windshield. This is what happens in a cover-up. People see things they don't see and don't see things they see. This close-up at Parkland shows no hole or crack and the reason is they were removed because it would show the inside of the bullet hole next to the mirror. It's a clean windshield which proves beyond doubt the photo was altered.

255 from front showing defect low and hole right of the mirror.

Showing only hole from the rear...no defect?

and as I understand it, they moved the bus full of "press/photographers" which was

supposed to be closer to the president's car into a further back location.

Altgens is remarkable in what he captured --!!

Official autopsy report also indicates wound in JFK's back was in his

right shoulder blade and was also a wound of ENTRY -- NO OUTLET

Further that wound was made at a 45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE -- !!!

The only thing you can get from those two woulds is "Magic Bullet BS" -- !!

all you have to do is read the autopsy report to know D&P's claim is utter bullshit.

The Altgens photo reenactment matches perfectly except no defect below mirror in 337.

The distance is perfect. Altgens took his front pic from right to the left and the rear pic from left to right. The defect from the rear appears further away from the mirror than the front pic.

Ok Duderstadt, I will try and make a case here.

In Dallas, the doctors talked to the press and described a massive wound in the back of Kennedy's head, behind the right ear. The describe massive damage to his brain. The doctors even describe his almost gone cerebellum, which they visually distinguish from cerebral tissue. This would be consistent with a shot hitting the from the front (probably front right, grassy knoll area) striking his right temple.

This also corresponds to the "Back and to the left" movement on the Zapruder film.

Many witnesses describe his exploding head. The car BEHIND JFK had his brains on the windshield. Two Secret Service Agents got struck by pieces of brain and skull so hard they they initially thought that they had been hit by the shooter(s). In the filme, Jackie can be seem crawling back on thetrunk of the car to get piece of her husband's skull and brain that had been blasted from his head. She later gave it to the doctors in Dallas, saying (I believe) "Would this help?"

At his second autopsy (overseen by multiple high ranking military men), his skull and brain are reported intact! The Dallas doctors get pressured to change their stories (or they get changed for them).

autopy. Jesus. You can't even get basic facts straight.

Anytime you want to go head to head, just let me know, dude.

Ok. Let's say that that was not an autopsy.

The big question is:

What caused:

1) JFK's head to move violently back and to his left

2) His brains and skull to be splattered on the people and car behind him

3) All the Dallas doctors to note his massive gaping skull wound

???

Did Oswald shoot him in the back of the head and then quickly pull out a powerful KGB spy-vacuum that pulled the President's head backwards whilst sucking the President's brains out of the bullet hole?

Perhaps he did this so that people would think JFK was shot from the front. Then Oswald could run down the stairs and enjoy a refreshing Coca-cola.

Luckily, he made the minor misstep of posing for photos with his rifle and Marxist literature.

By the way man, I am being a wiseass here, but I am not trying to mock you personally or obscure the horror of this man's violent death. It is just unbelievable that the official story still has any currency whatsoever.

you'll see that JFK's head snapped forward first (to the point that his chin was buried in his chest) before it snapped back. Remember the severe back problems he had? Remember how he always wore a stiff back brace? Think that would have had anything to do with it?

More importantly, where would you expect the brain matter to go in a moving car when JFK was shot in the back of the head? Are you saying the doctors who performed the autopsy denied he was shot in the back of the head? Have you seen the drawings from the autopsy? You realize that JFK didn't justy have a "bullet hole" in the back of his head, right? Why would you refer to the efforts the doctors at Parkland made to save JFK's life an an autopsy? Do you even have the slightest idea how an autopsy is performed?

Why are you so poorly informed, dude?

Yes the Autopsy was done at the Naval Base. My point was the Kennedy was sadly DOA at the Dallas hospital.

I think that you can be forgiven for not knowing this, but according to the official story, there was no massive wound to the back of JFK's head. That's because a massive wound in that area could have only been an exit wound. That's why the Warren Commission and the autopsy doctors had to hide this. The WC stated that his brain was largely intact and they made no mention of the massive brain explosion that covered people in brain and skull.

The testimony of the Dallas witnesses was supposed to be classified until 2037, but thanks to Oliver Stone and the JFK Records Act, it was released in the early 90's. The medical testimony basically proved a massive cover-up that that also proves foreknowledge of what the cover story was going to be: a lone assassin firing from the rear. It was the story of the century, and yet the media totally ignored it.

Why would the government classify doctors and nurses and Secret Servicemen and FBI agents talking about the President's gunshot wounds?

Were they afraid that the Soviets might figure out that our leaders are vulnerable to brain-exploding high powered rifle bullets?

Or... how could all these people have been wrong about something as noteworthy as a massive, brain-exploding exit wound that destroyed the back of the head of the President of the United States?

This is what I was referring to earlier: the details that have been kept from the public thanks to censorship, then self-censorship, point unmistakably toward a massive conspiracy.

To deny a conspiracy, one must discredit or erase the vivid, awful memories of the people who all described the same thing: A MASSIVE, GAPING BLOODY WOUND TO THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD THAT COULD ONLY BE AN EXIT WOUND.

They are total bullshit.

For example, here's a drawing from the autopsy. Does this look like someone is trying to cover up a gaping head wound to you? Where do you get this bullshit from?



With all due respect, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're entitled to your own opinions about the assassination, but not your own facts.

Yes, that is a drawing from the autopsy. My point is that the evidence indicates that the autopsy was conducted not to determine the details about the death, but to satisfy the Lone Nut conclusion.

The ARRB interviewed many doctors and examined the records from Dallas and Bethesda. Even one of the Navy doctors described the massive head wound!

This is from an interview with Doug Horne from the ARRB:

"The second pathologist deposed was Dr. Boswell. After that, there was no doubt about a major medical cover-up. (Boswell was much more forthcoming than Humes, and inadvertently, I think, “gave the store away” on a number of occasions.) It was my idea to use an anatomically correct model of the human skull, which I was allowed to purchase and construct myself, in an attempt to get Boswell to visually identify the true extent of the damage to President Kennedy’s skull. (Thereshouldn'tn’t have been any doubt this 33 years after the autopsy, but unfortunately much eyewitness testimony disagreed with the autopsy photographs and x-rays, and many of the autopsy photos seemed intended to conceal, rather than to reveal the true nature of the head wounds.)

When Boswell had executed a famous two-dimensional sketch of the damage to the skull on the reverse side of the autopsy body chart on November 22, 1963, he’d indicated that a large area of bone was missing from the top of the president’s skull, but his diagram left unanswered whether any bone was missing from the back of the head. While he was still under oath, we asked Boswell to define where there was bone missing, in three dimensions, on the skull model with a marking pen. We wanted to know how much skull bone might have been missing in the back of the head, if any. Of course, we didn’t tell him that.

And when he soberly, but matter-of-factly marked the area of missing bone on the skull model, it included the entire right rear of the skull behind the ear. Jeremy and I almost fell out of our chairs. Now the autopsy photographs, which show the back of the head to be intact, made no sense whatsoever. Boswell’s annotated skull model implied that three must have been a shot that struck Kennedy from the front, a bullet that exited from the back of his skull. (Exit wounds are large and avulsive; entrance wounds are small and penetrating.)"

So... Even one of the navy doctors admitted to there being a rear exit wound!

The rest of the interview can be read here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/11/doug-horne.html

Here is an article that appeared in the Washington Post:

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/2brain.html

Please provide an innocent explanation of how they could examine the wrong brain accidentally and then later the President's brain just happens to get stolen. Who, other than someone in the government, could get away with stealing JFK's brain?

Good stuff for sure.

why didn't it hit the kimo behind them????

What is a Kimo?

Is that a special Japanese garment or am I thinking of something else ?

notice how the "k" key is next to the "L" key? Does that give you any ideas? Or, are you just so petty, you feel compelled to point out obvious typos?

k = l

Thanks for providing a decoding cipher!

As far as the bullet goes, can you really think of no reasons why that might not be the case?

If one car is in front of another, can you shoot a person in the front car without hitting the rear car?

Of course.

That is actually far more likely than hitting the rear car.

Right?

You have written many many "debunking" posts on this site, but I am not sure that debunking is your strong suit. Perhaps they offer an Associate's Degree in Debunking Studies at a community college in your area.

near you.

Also, if JFK was shot from the front, can you project the trajectory and tell us where the shooter was positioned without being seen? Hint: it ain't in front of the limo, dude. Duh.

Do you think that I meant he was standing directly in front of the limo like Tank Man?






The grassy knoll is a good possibility. Zapruder and Nix, who both videotaped the shooting, said the shots came from the grassy knoll.

Here is a random drawing I found of it:






And yes, that would be a shot from the front.

that's why the trajectory goes through the limo from the SIDE. Simple question: If, as you claim, the shot was fired from there, how do you account for the lack of bullet fragments in the left hemisphere of JFK's brain, dude?

Duh.

You found the brain?

Seriously though, something can be both in front of AND the to side of something else! Do I need to link to a photo illustrating this phenomenon?

look at the diagram that YOU provided, then explain the lack of bullet fragments in the left hemisphere of JFK's brain. You're not really claiming his brain was "missing" during the autopsy, right? You realize that is another myth, right?

On second thought, nevermind. It's going on 47 years and you crack researchers haven't busted this case open yet. What are you waiting for? All the witnesses to die?

duh.

I assume you are not talking about the fake brain mentioned here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

How strange that of all the wrong brains they could have accidentally chosen, they chose one that had injuries like those described in the Warren Commission Report.

If I were trying to make case for the fringe Krazy Ozwald theory, I would probably not even mention the word "brain."

you can believe Horne if you want, but it's really stupid to claim the doctors conducting the autopsy were examining the wrong brain.


This is only slightly less silly than David Lifton's claim that JFK's body was kidnapped from the casket and his body was "altered".

For the love of Mike, when are you guys going to come up with something conclusive? Where is the smoking gun? How many decades does it take? Until all the direct witnesses are dead and you guys can say whatever you want without fear of contradiction?

What on earth are you guys waiting for????

They printed the article. That is pretty serious.

Has the CIA ever conspired to assassinate a head of state and if so do you as a liberal have a problem with that?

Do you get that that does not mean they are, in any way, endorsing what he is saying? If not, would you then believe if the Post reports on what the leader of the Minutemen says (typically racist) that that similarly means they are, in any way, subscribing to those beliefs? As I said earlier, you can believe Horne if you want, but it's silly to believe that JFK's brain was somehow switched for another during the autopsy.

As to your other question, read "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner". And, of course, as a liberal, I am opposed to the asassination of foreign heads of state by the CIA. Duh. But, from here on out, I do not feel obliged to defend my liberal credentials to you and, if you notice, I have not questioned your credentials as either a Democrat or a liberal (or whatever you are) one single time. However, certain "truthers"/JFK assassination conspiracy buffs (including you) do it regularly as a way of poisoning the debate, frankly in violation of DU rules. So, not only will I not respond to your salvos implying I cannot be a liberal because I don't buy your bullshit, I'm not going to respond to you at all because I have repeatedly asked you politely to stop poisoning the debate, yet you continue to do so.

Let me end by posing two questions. How is the CIA supposed to prove they DIDN'T murder JFK? In other words, how can they prove a negative? Secondly, if, as it appears, you believe that one cannot believe Oswald was the lone assassain and simultaneously be a liberal, would you also hold that Vincent Bugliosi is not a liberal? The author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" isn't a liberal? So, you're entitled to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe about the JFK assassination, dude, just as I am entitled to believe that silly, unfounded conspiracy theories embarrass liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU. But you're not entitled to continually malign someone and insinuate they are some sort of stealth conservative/GOP simply because they disagree with you on the facts.

You have a lot to learn about debate, dude. You also have a lot to learn about playing fair.

Don't have the exact quote on hand -- just a few words --

used to use it for my "comment" on DU --

Agree, however, that the doctors were all intimidated --

Finck did get a few things out, however --

and one was that there was pretty much nothing left of JFK's brain --

Earl Cabell was the mayor of Dallas in 1963. His brother was the deputy director of the CIA until JFK fired him after the CIA's deception at the Bay of Pigs.

D.H. Byrd a Texas oil man and the owner of the Texas School Book Depository bought $2.5 million in LTV shares in November of 1963. They were soon after awarded a big defense department contract at the beginning of the Vietnam and the stocks' value went up 1000%.

The Secret Service was ordered to ignore normal procedures and stand down, as seen in this video:

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

Even when the shooting started, the SS guy in charge (Emory Roberts) told the SS agents to stay where they were (not to run to the President). He was the same guy who in the above movie tells the agent not to go with the limo, even thought this pisses off the agent wants to, uh, protect the President and stuff.

It's crazy that even though 80% of the public disbelieves the Warren Commission, there are suppossed hard core Democrats who want to get on message board and argue for their fringe "Krazy God-like Marksman Oswald Theory."

Oswald is supposedly this Marxist Castro lover. When Fidel hears the news of the assassination, he is talking with an American representative of JFK. The two are actually discussing a normalization of relations between the US and Cuba. On November 23rd, Fidel goes on Cuban television and says:

“How strange that this former Marine should go to the Soviet Union and try to become a Soviet citizen, and that the Soviets should not accept him, that he should say at the American embassy that he intended to disclose to the Soviet Union the secrets of everything he learned…He goes back to Texas and finds a job. This is all so strange!”

Keep in mind that this is before Oswald gets killed by a pimp in a room full of policemen. The pimp says that he did it because he, uh, didn't want Jackie Kennedy to have to go through a trial. What a sweet guy! Thus Oswald is silenced without ever having the chance to say anything of substance to the public besides, "I'm a patsy."

"I'm a patsy" does not sound like the words of a murderous fanatic.

So... which theory is it again that requires you to accept a larger amount of ridiculous bullshit?

it's pretty stupid to claim the SS was ordered to "stand down" on the basis of a video with no sound involving one agent when the limo is still at Love Field.

Any large scale, catastrophic event will, by definition, be accompanied by unanswered questions, conflicting accounts and anomalies. You can skew the evidence anyway you want, but it keeps pointing back to Oswald. The most despicable part of your post, however, is how you cast anyone who doesn't buy the JFK assassination CT bullshit as someone whose Democratic Party credentials are suspect. Stick to the "facts" and quit casting aspersions on our motivation, dude.

In the real world, the only people I know that believe the Warren Commission are hard core republicans. And a just a few DINOs.

DINO? Read his memoir, dude. He believed the Warren Commission.

It's way past time for you quit poisoning the debate here by lashing out at and smearing anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to your Bush Derangement Syndrome or buy your goofy bullshit, dude. I sincerely implore you to quit embarrassing DU with your nonsense, dude.

Could you imagine the shit if EMK had said otherwise? EMK was a player. He played along. He had to.

It's like Gore giving up in 2000. Keeping the peace. I can (barely) respect that.

it's obvious that you haven't read "True Compass". Now you are maligning EMK by claiming he indirectly participated in a cover-up because he "had to"? You have got to be kidding.

Is there no limit to your lack of decency? Is there anyone that you won't lash out at? You're going way over the top here, dude.

I'm not a blind follower of anybody or anything.
Just because they have been appointed as an authority does mean a damn thing to me. It is what being free really means.

Seems to me you are saying I am either with you or against you. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before?

show me where I said anything remotely like you are either for me or against me, dude.

More dishonestly, you go on to imply I am like Bush, simply because I disagree with you? Dude, why did EMK believe the Warren Commission? Why would he have to "go along" with it, especially when he knew he was dying? Do you really think "being free" gives you license to malign EMK's honor when you have none yourself?

Simple question: when are you going to quit poisoning the debate here and accord those who disagree with you the same respect you demand for yourself? Why don't you show some maturity or does "being free" let you off the hook there as well?

RFK and Jackie Kennedy sent a messenger (William Walton) to Khrushchev telling him that he knew that the Soviets were not behind Oswald, and that RFK wanted a serious investigation of the forces within the US government that killed his brother, but that that could not happen until he got into the White House.

As for Ted, who knows why he never publicly denounced the Warren Commission. Perhaps he had some things he wanted to accomplish before he joined his brothers in the cemetery.

I obviously don't know any of the guys on these boards, but I will say this: It is just about impossible to find any discussion on the internet about JFK without finding people making the "Krazy Friendless Ozwald" argument. And they usually know enough about the details of the case to make a passable effort at rhetorically polishing the turd that is the Warren Commission Report. The thing is, the case is about 50 years old. The established authorities all tow the WCR party line. If you don't believe in the possibility of conspiracy, why bother to learn the details of the case? What could be more boring than learning the details of random people who are connected only in the minds of a bunch of people you deem paranoid? It's like memorizing history, only it's history that you "know" is bullshit. Why not find a schizophrenic homeless guy and write down everything he says?

Another really funny thing that I have noticed at least half a dozen times is persons who claim to have first hand knowledge of person or event and then they inevitably discredit the conspiracy angle (ie, Roger Craig's daughter, E. Howard Hunt's milkman, Jack Ruby's Rabbi, Guy Bannister's long lost third cousin).

Is it really hard to believe that the government would employ Warren Commission Spammers after looking at the way they have worked to maintain unanimity among the press and academics? Did you ever notice how if you Google anything about the assassination, you get four McAdams sites? Does he have a huge following? Are there hoards of people who rush to their computers thinking, "Ahh shit, I can't wait to read another one of John McAdams' debunkings!" Or are we to believe that loathsome troll is some kind of computer wizz who has learned how to game search engines?

I truly believe that if people want to attack the National Security State, the JFK assassination is the place to start. The technology of the time really limited the sophistication of the cover-up, making it totally obvious that we were duped. Look at those backyard photos with the exact same Oswald head, but a line going through his (but not his) chin. Think of how ridiculous those pictures are. "Marina, come out to the backyard and take a picture of me holding my rifle and my Communist newspapers!"

"the Soviets were not behind Oswald"

Please document this.

Also, I have a simple question: Do you admit that there are two sides to this issue, that it's entirely possible that Oswald did it and people can honestly believe that Oswald did do it and not be a pawn of the "national security state"?

I gotta tell ya...I'm getting a little tired of the "EMK was a coward" argument.

I think that Teddy's motives are difficult to discern. People shouldn't call him a coward. For all we know the rest of the family begged him to let it go, especially after RFK.

From what I understand, he was an honorable man. He was one of our best Senators in the last 40 years. It is a tragedy that his seat is now filled by that Stepford underwear model guy.

By the way, I was not trying to say that you are a CIA Spambot. I was just saying that I think that they exist and that the gov't is afraid of the net and tries to control or shape the discourse in ways that they hope are not obvious.

I was a politically conscious kid. I had family in politics. I personally never really believed the Krazy Ozwald theory. I saw JFK in 8th grade and it always seemed more plausible then the idea of a random loner who:

1) pulls off the greatest feat of Markmanship in history with a shitty rifle

2) does nothing to conceal his crime and in fact does all these things to publicaly foreshadow his guilt

3) when in custody says that he is a "patsy"

4) gets killed by a humanitarian pimp before he can tell his side of the story

I only recently looked again at the crime. In the meantime, I read a lot of books about US foreign policy and post war history. After you read Kinzer's book Overthrow and you learn about the CIA assassinating leaders and overthrowing democratically elected leaders at the behest United Fruit/Petroleum/Copper/Whatever Corporation, you get a sense of the worldview that these guys had. They were not liberals. They didn't even believe in democracy. They believed in wealth and power and oligarchy. When you understand the CIA and the power of the elite in America, the assassination conspiracy becomes plausible.

Then I looked at the evidence and the sheer undeniability of what it all means. So... I don't think that everyone who accepts Krazy Ozwald is an idiot. After all, to do any different, one must disagree with all the "serious" people in our country. But I do not think that after looking at all the evidence that people have accumulated in the face of enormous government opposition, it is a virtual metaphysical certainty that JFK was killed by the National Security establishment of the United States, which then covered up the crime.

JFK was a hero. He posed as a hawk because the political climate demanded it. He died as a martyr for peace. The bad guys won. US policy subsequently led to between 5 and 7 million deaths in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Indonesia. The military industrial complex made $ billions. Their power in society and politics became all the more unassailable. The War spending drain on the economy led to the shocks, stagflation, and recessions of the 70's. Then Reagan came. A new bigger shift to the rich. Working and middle class white people felt economically insecure. Manufacturing and unions nearly vanished. Politicians often scapegoated blacks who were said to have benefited at the expense of whites. Religion became a tool to divide people as well.

We can all see the results. We have immense wealth, yet the most inequality in the industrialized world. We are becoming the United States of Brazil. Money controls the government to an absurd degree. Even with huge Democratic majorities in DC, we can't get anything done.

JFK said that when he died, he wanted his epitaph to read "He Kept the Peace."

And for the rest of his short life, he did just that.

Are you kidding? Why did he flee the scene? Why didn't he leave the rifle in plain sight? When questioned, why did he deny he even owned a rifle? How in the world do you deem it the greatest feat of marksmanship in history? It was close range and Oswald missed one shot altogether. It wasn't even all that far and the target (JFK) was moving away from him. What is so difficult about that?

You tricked me with Ted Kennedy photo! I thought you were just a regular Democratic dude who like to talk about Democratic stuff! But I searched the site and all you do is try and critique anyone who thinks that the government's official stories about this or that could be wrong!

I personally can't imagine anything more boring than learning the minutiae of conspiracies theories I don't believe, so let me ask you:

Why does a liberal person like yourself spend so much time debating conspiracy theorists?

It makes me think of this:

"Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups."

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I believe that goofy, unproven conspiracy theories embarrass liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU. I'll put my liberal Democratic credentials up against yours any day. Since you can't seem to even get basic facts straight and seem focused on attacking my Democratic credentials, I think I'll quit wasting time trying to reason with you. Bye, dude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I told you I would be more than willing to debate actual facts, not have you cast aspersions on my motivation.

It's nothing personal. I do not know anything about you obviously.

I guess I just have gotten the impression that on the internet it is very hard to find any discussion about JFK without someone always trying to play devil's advocate and defend the Krazy Ozwald hypothesis.

In the time that I have spent talking to other liberal people, I rarely run into anyone who, on this particular subject, is very knowledgeable about the particulars, yet defends the WCR. The two things seem to be mutually exclusive. And I have talked to a lot of people because of my various jobs over the years.

Yet on the web, as I mentioned, it is next to impossible to find a thread (discussion or letters) where there isn't someone who has to be the contrarian. That could be totally happenstance.

Take me for example. I think Obama is a citizen. And yet, I don't know the "evidence" that informs the birthers' arguments. Their evidence seems to me to be "anti-knowledge" so why would I even want neurons and synapses and cells in my brain to be devoted filing that information away?

Maybe you could write an explanation explaining why you as a liberal democrat, choose to write only to disagree with conspiracy theory. There could very well be a totally reasonable explanation. If you explain this, it could even help to make other people here understand your arguments better.

I do not think that I have said anything insulting here, and I have not called you any names or accused you of anything in this post.

This post won't get deleted, right?

This is just a backhanded attempt to question my liberal credentials. Not playing.

Conspiracy theories are embarrassing because they aren't based on concrete evidence and you've demonstrated that you can't even get the most basic of facts correct.

No offense.

P.S. I am not your "buddy", dude.

You are very sensitive.

Other than writing "2nd autopsy", what did I get wrong?

What would be "concrete evidence" ?

How about a picture of Oswald with Ferrie ?

What about a CIA document listing Clay Shaw as CIA ?

How about a pamphlet passed out by Oswald's name and the address of an anti-communist CIA-connected private investigator ?

Hey, this could easily be solved by examining JFK's brain. Wait, where is that brain ? Did someone come to the National Archives and absent-mindedly put the President's brain in their pants and walk out not realizing what they had done ?

If the guilty party (elements os the gov't) is in possession of most of the "concrete evidence" why would one expect it to be genuine?

Besides, Conspiracies are conceived in shadowy recesses.... Conspiracies are proven bit by bit, speck by speck, brick by brick, until all of a sudden you have a mosaic. They are proven by circumstantial evidence.

Does that make sense ?

if there were such a thing as a professional spambot, would such a person be paid an hourly rate, or on a per post basis?

With the recent trend of corporatizing governmental functions (ie Blackwater, Diebold), would these Spambots be employed by the government or would they be subcontracted out? Perhaps QVC could could use people from their call centers to act as debunkers for a portion of their time.

I am not saying that these people exist, and I am certainly not referring to anyone in particular. I am just curious. Anyone know anything about this subject ?

Who, and/or where do you think the fatal shot was fired?

duh.

How would I know?

just like the HSCA concluded, dude. Got it?

... also said there was likely a conspiracy. That doesn't mean much to me, but since you place so much weight on the government's positions, maybe that would help to sway you.

The massive wound in the back of his head suggests that the shot must have come from the front. Perhaps the shot came from the knoll. You know, the grassy one.

The weird thing is, the HSCA was really a weak investigation. When the the first guy (Sprague I think) actually treated it like an investigation, the backlash was enormous. This lawyer with a previously impeccable record started reading newspaper stories about his unethical/illegal/scandalous past. The work of the committee nearly stopped because of the amount of BS they had to deal with. Finally he stepped down. Then all of those supposedly serious cases of misconduct just vanish.

The government has never allowed a real investigation into the murder of JFK.

Too bad RFK died before he could launch a real one. Jim Garrison warned him that his only chance was to announce that as president, he would investigate the crime and dare them to kill him. RFK did not take Garrison's advice.

if, as you claim, the shot came from the front, where is the entrance wound?

Obviously they had figured out what the angles were very quickly!!


As for Ted ...

I was always shocked that he'd vouch for the WC report !!

But later I came upon some writings re threats to him and his family --

I think I have it somewhere -- if I find it, I'll come back and PS it onto this post!


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

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MzbnHMUcFaMJ:www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html+chappaquiddick+cutler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Chapter 7
The Control of the Kennedys
Threats & Chappaquiddick





Through the years the most common question of all has been: "If there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, why didn't Robert Kennedy find out about it and take some action? And if there was a conspiracy in the RFK assassination why haven't Ted Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy done something about it?" No one except the Kennedys know the answers to these questions for sure. However, there are plenty of clues and some other Power Control Group actions to provide the answers to us.

First of all, thanks to Jackie Kennedy Onassis' butler in Athens, Greece, Christain Cafarakis, we know why Jackie did nothing after her husband's death. In a book published in 1972, Cafarakis tells about an investigation Jackie had conducted by a famous New York City detective agency into the assassination of JFK in 1964 and 1965.<1> It was financed by Aristotle Onassis and resulted in a report in the spring of 1965 telling who the four gunmen were and who was behind them. Jackie planned to give the report to LBJ but was stopped by a threat from the Power Control Group to kill her and her children. Ted, Bobby and other family members knew about the report and the threat.
The second clue is Chappaquiddick. A careful examination of the real evidence in this event shows that Ted Kennedy was framed in the killing of Mary Joe Kopechne and then his life and his children's lives threatened if he ever told the truth about what happened. The facts in the case and the conclusions that can be drawn from them are contained in a book by Boston researcher Robert Cutler.<2>
The third clue is Ted's withdrawal from the presidential race in November 1975. It is a fact that all of his and Robert's children were being protected by the Secret Service for five days in November 1975. A threat had been made against the children's lives unless he officially announced his withdrawal. He made the announcement and has stuck to it ever since. The Secret Service protection ended the day after he made the announcement.

It does not seem likely that Senator Kennedy would withdraw from the race because of a threat from a lone nut or from some obscure group. He remembers the 1965 threat and Chappaquiddick very well. He knows about the Power Control Group and he knows their enormous capability. He knows what they did to his brothers. He has no choice but to hope that somehow, sometime, the Group will be exposed. But he dares not let them believe he would ever have anything to do with it. Publicly he will always have to support the Warren Commission and continue to state that he will not run for president. Privately he is forced to ask his closest friends and his relatives not to get involved with new investigations, and to help protect his children. Some of them know the truth. Others do not, and are puzzled by his behavior. They go along with it under the assumption that he has good and sufficient reasons not to open the can of worms represented by the conspiracies in his brother's deaths.

The Power Control Group faced up to the Ted Kennedy and Kennedy family problem very early. They used the threat against the Kennedy children's lives very effectively between 1963 and 1968 to silence Bobby and the rest of the family and friends who knew the truth. It was necessary to assassinate Bobby in 1968 because with the power of the presidency he could have prevented the Group from harming the children. When Teddy began making moves to run for president in 1969 for the 1972 election, the Group decided to put some real action behind their threats. Killing Teddy in 1969 would have been too much. They selected a new way of eliminating him as a candidate. They framed him with the death of a young girl, and threw sexual overtones in for good measure.

Here is what happened according to Cutler's analysis of the evidence. The Group hired several men and at least one woman to be at Chappaquiddick during the weekend of the yacht race and the planned party on the island. They ambushed Ted and Mary Jo after they left the cottage and knocked Ted out with blows to his head and body. They took the unconscious or semi-conscious Kennedy to Martha's Vineyard and deposited him in his hotel room. Another group took Mary Jo to the bridge in Ted's car, force fed her with a knock out potion of alcoholic beverage, placed her in the back seat, and caused the car to accelerate off the side of the bridge into the water. They broke the windows on one side of the car to insure the entry of water; then they watched the car until they were sure Mary Jo would not escape.

Mary Jo actually regained consciousness and pushed her way to the top of the car (which was actually the bottom of the car -- it had landed on its roof) and died from asphyxiation. The group with Teddy revived him early in the morning and let him know he had a problem. Possibly they told him that Mary Jo had been kidnapped. They told him his children would be killed if he told anyone what had happened and that he would hear from them. On Chappaquiddick, the other group made contact with Markham and Gargan, Ted's cousin and lawyer. They told both men that Mary Jo was at the bottom of the river and that Ted would have to make up a story about it, not revealing the existence of the group. One of the men resembled Ted and his voice sounded something like Ted's. Markham and Gargan were instructed to go the the Vineyard on the morning ferry, tell Ted where Mary Jo was, and come back to the island to wait for a phone call at a pay station near the ferry on the Chappaquiddick side.

The two men did as they were told and Ted found out what had happened to Mary Jo that morning. The three men returned to the pay phone and received their instructions to concoct a story about the "accident" and to report it to the police. The threat against Ted's children was repeated at that time.

Ted, Markham and Gargan went right away to police chief Arena's office on the Vineyard where Ted reported the so-called "accident." Almost at the same time scuba diver John Farror was pulling Mary Jo out of the water, since two boys who had gone fishing earlier that morning had spotted the car and reported it.

Ted called together a small coterie of friends and advisors including family lawyer Burke Marshall, Robert MacNamara, Ted Sorenson, and others. They met on Squaw Island near the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport for three days. At the end of that time they had manufactured the story which Ted told on TV, and later at the inquest. Bob Cutler calls the story, "the shroud." Even the most cursory examination of the story shows it was full of holes and an impossible explanation of what happened. Ted's claim that he made the wrong turn down the dirt road toward the bridge by mistake is an obvious lie. His claim that he swam the channel back to Martha's Vineyard is not believable. His description of how he got out of the car under water and then dove down to try to rescue Mary Jo is impossible. Markham and Gargan's claims that they kept diving after Mary Jo are also unbelievable.

The evidence for the Cutler scenario is substantial. It begins with the marks on the bridge and the position of the car in the water. The marks show that the car was standing still on the bridge and then accelerated off the edge, moving at a much higher speed than Kennedy claimed. The distance the car travelled in the air also confirms this. The damage to the car on two sides and on top plus the damage to the windshield and the rear view mirror stanchion <3> prove that some of the damage had to have been inflicted before the car left the bridge.

The blood on the back and on the sleeves of Mary Jo's blouse proves that a wound was inflicted before she left the bridge.<4> The alcohol in her bloodstream proves she was drugged, since all witnesses testified she never drank and did not drink that night. The fact that she was in the back seat when her body was recovered indicates that is where she was when the car hit the water. There was no way she could have dived downward against the inrushing water and moved from the front to the back seat underneath the upside-down seat back.

The wounds on the back of Ted Kennedy's skull, those just above his ear and the large bump on the top indicate he was knocked out. His actions at the hotel the next morning show he was not aware of Mary Jo's death until Markham and Gargan arrived. The trip to the pay phone on Chappaquiddick can only be explained by his receiving a call there, not making one. There were plenty of pay phones in or near Ted's hotel if he needed to make a private call. The tides in the channel and the direction in which Ted claimed he swam do not match. In addition it would have been a superhuman feat to have made it across the channel (as proven by several professionals who subsequently tried it).

Deputy Sheriff Christopher Look's testimony, coupled with the testimony of Ray LaRosa and two Lyons girls, proves that there were two people in Ted's car with Mary Jo at 12:45 PM. The three party members walking along the road south toward the cottage confirmed the time that Mr. Look drove by. He stopped to ask if they needed a ride. Look says that just prior to that he encountered Ted's car parked facing north at the juncture of the main road and the dirt road. It was on a short extension of the north-south section of the road junction to the north of the "T". He says he saw a man driving, a woman in the seat beside him, and what he thought was another woman lying on the back seat. He remembered a portion of the license plate which matched Ted's car, as did the description of the car. Markham, Gargan and Ted's driver's testimony show that someone they talked to in the pitch black night sounded like Ted and was about his height and build.

None of the above evidence was ever explained by Ted or by anyone else at the inquest or at the hearing on the case demanded by district attorney Edward Dinis. No autopsy was ever allowed on Mary Jo's body (her family objected), and Ted made it possible to fly her body home for burial rather quickly. Kennedy haters have seized upon Chappaquiddick to enlarge the sexual image now being promoted of both Ted and Jack Kennedy. Books like "Teddy Bare" take full advantage of the situation.

Just which operatives in the Power Control Group at the high levels or the lower levels were on Chappaquiddick Island? No definite evidence has surfaced as yet, except for an indication that there was at least one woman and at least three men, one of whom resembled Ted Kennedy and who sounded like him in the darkness. However, two pieces of testimony in the Watergate hearings provide significant clues as to which of the known JFK case conspirators may have been there.

E. Howard Hunt told of a strange trip to Hyannisport to see a local citizen there about the Chappaquiddick incident. Hunt's cover story on this trip was that he was digging up dirt on Ted Kennedy for use in the 1972 campaign. The story does not make much sense if one questions why Hunt would have to wear a disguise, including his famous red wig, and to use a voice-alteration device to make himself sound like someone else. If, on the other hand, Hunt's purpose was to return to the scene of his crime just to make sure that no one who might have seen his group at the bridge or elsewhere would talk, then the disguise and the voice box make sense.

The other important testimony came from Tony Ulasewicz who said he was ordered by the Plumbers to fly immediately to Chappaquiddick and dig up dirt on Ted. The only problem Tony has is that, according to his testimony, he arrived early on the morning of the "accident", before the whole incident had been made public. Ulasewicz is the right height and weight to resemble Kennedy and with a CIA voice-alteration device he presumably could be made to sound like him. There is a distinct possibility that Hunt and Tony were there when it happened.

The threats by the Power Control Group, the frame-up at Chappaquiddick, and the murders of Jack and Bobby Kennedy cannot have failed to take their toll on all of the Kennedys. Rose, Ted, Jackie, Ethel and the other close family members must be very tired of it all by now. They can certainly not be blamed for hoping it will all go away. Investigations like those proposed by Henry Gonzalez and Thomas Downing only raised the spectre of the powerful Control Group taking revenge by kidnapping some of the seventeen children.

It was no wonder that a close Kennedy friend and ally in California, Representative Burton, said that he would oppose the Downing and Gonzalez resolutions unless Ted Kennedy put his stamp of approval on them. While the sympathies of every decent American go out to them, the future of our country and the freedom of the people to control their own destiny through the election process mean more than the lives of all the Kennedys put together. If John Kennedy were alive today he would probably make the same statement.

John Dean summed it up when he said to Richard Nixon as recorded on the White House tapes in 1973: "If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick. . . ."<5>


__________
The fabulous Jackie -- Christian Cafarakis -- Productions de Paris -- 1972
You the Jury -- Robert Cutler -- Self Published -- 1974
A rope attached to the stick which held the Oldsmobile throttle wide open caught the drivers rear view mirror and tore it loose so that it was hanging by the rear bolt. There was no other mark on the left side of the car.
A sliver of glass from two broken windows no doubt caused this bleeding since Mary Jo was already face down and unconscious in the rear seat. Since there was no autopsy this clean cut went unnoticed by the embalmers.
On page 121, White House Tapes Paperback Edition, published by New York Times


---------I think I have more on personal threats to him -- there was the immediate plane "accident"

of course after the coup on JFK -- but also fears that his children and Kennedy children in general

would be harmed. IMO, they did finally kill JFK, Jr.

all that Chapaquidick stuff. I read that Dieugenio summed the event (and Ted's version of it) up as suspicious, but unknowable at this point.

Whereas JFK's death is demonstrably knowable.

Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator realized the truth after talking to Arlen Specter (who worked as a lawyer for the Warren Commission and came up with the magic bullet.

From Fonzi's book, THE LAST INVESTIGATION (I added pics obvi):

<[[[ The photographs of the shirt worn by the President shows a hole in the back consistent with the one in the jacket, about five-and-three-quarter inches below the top of the collar and one-and-one-eighth inches to the right of the middle. The discrepancy is obvious.[br />
The locations of both these holes are inconsistent with the wound below the back of the right ear described in the Commission's autopsy report.

I'll never forget asking Specter about that as I sat in his City Hall office in Philadelphia. (It was about a year after he had returned from his Warren Commission job; he had recently been elected District Attorney.)



"Well," he said, "that difference is accounted for because the President is waving his arm." He got up from his desk and attempted to demonstrate his explanation on me, pulling my arm up high over my head. "Wave your arm a few times," he said, "wave at the crowd." He was standing behind me now, jabbing a finger into the base of my neck. "Well, see, if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point."

A lower point?

"Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up."

If the jacket were "hunched up," I asked, wouldn't there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

"No, not necessarily. It ... it wouldn't be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that ... aaah ... that it gets ... that ... aaah ... this ... this is about the way the jacket rides up. You sit back ... sit back now ... all right now ... if ... usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling is right up here, but if ... but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits ... it's not ... it ordinarily doesn't crease that far back."

What about the shirt?



"Same thing."

Was Specter saying there was no inconsistency between the Commission's location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

"No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt ... after all, we lined up the shirt ... and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in the slit in the front ... "

But where did it go in the back?

"Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes ... aah ... well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn't higher, enough higher to ... aah ... understand the ... aah ... the angle of decline which ..."

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

"Well, I think that ... that if you took the shirt without allowing for its being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower."

Somewhat LOWER?

"Perhaps. I ... I don't want to say because I don't really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt." ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

This is from the Warren Commission Report:



This is totally consistent with the holes in JFK's shirt and jacket, if he wore them like this:




It is absolutely amazing that this is believable to anyone at this point.

Re JFK wounds, from my post above --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=278091&mesg_id=280822

The wound in JFK's right shoulder blade was probbed repeatedly at autopsy --

with fingers and with medical tools -- NO OUTLET.

Neck wound had NO OUTLET --



And, I think you should read what I posted re Chappaquidic -

Re Dean's comments -- and why Ted's official story is obviously not true.

And the likelihood that the White House Plumbers played some role in it --


There is, of course, no Magic Bullet -- as I understand it, Specter delivered the "Magic Bullet"

but the suggestion was being formed at autopsy and I think Blakely had something to do with it.

And it could not have been pulled off without Rep. Jerry Ford's having changed the back wound to

a back of the "neck" wound. Betrayal/Treason of the highest order!

JFK's clothing was also cleaned --

I've read that info before, but thank you --

and I agree -- who would believe all of this crap --

Unfortunately, it is by assassination and murder that the right wing rises --

that's the only way they can!

And we've had at least 50 years of in plein air political violence by the right wing!

That got knocked down looong ago. That is why there is so much bullshit out there: to confuse people. The mob, Hoffa, RFK, Castro, LBJ, the Limo Driver, Jackie was Manchurian candidate... Who would seriously deduce these explanations on their own?

It has been painfully obvious for a long time.

What organization has removed Democratically elected heads of state at their whim?

What organization has used terrorist bombings to advance political ends?

What organization has employed the Mafia for the purpose of assassinating a head of state?

What organization has systematically worked to infiltrate and persuade major media organs and universities to further their various agendas?

And did JFK threaten to smash this organization into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind?

And was that organization's top man fired by JFK?

And after JFK's death, was that same man actually in charge of investigating the assassination of the man who fired him ?



I am not even very clever, but my simple post earlier with those pictures of JFK' clothes and the Warren Drawing of the magic bullet, basically show that the magic bullet is impossible.

I don't care if the federal government trots out Steven Hawking and he gives a Powerpoint presentation on "Bunching."

If Dulles was "in charge of the investigation", why was it named the "Warren Commission"?

The shot from the fence was at least a 45 degree angle, therefore could not have caused the exit on the right rear.

Many Grassy Knoll witnesses to that -- some who were aware of the shots coming from

behind them - and the gun smoke that lingered there from the shots.

Obviously, the blasted out right rear of the JFK's head indicates a shot from the front.

A computer study of JFK's head wound suggests that there may have been a shot fired from

the "sewer" at the Grassy Knoll location. There may also have been shots fired from the

overpass. There was a fuselage of shots at the end --

trying to find a rifle anywhere around that era that emitted smoke. Stupid post.

THE EXIT WAS ON HIS RIGHT REAR SKULL.

then explain where the entrance wound was and why the bullet did not hit the winshield and/or anyone else in the limo. This just gets dumber all the time.

Simple question: If you wanted to make absolutely sure you killed JFK, would you try to shoot him from a sewer?

There is no doubt the shot came from the front. That's not even in dispute. Any north side shot is out because his head was turned to the left.

Again, if your "claim" is true, where's the entrance wound????

Mr. Specter.
Did you just mention, Mr. Greer, a hole in the President's head in addition to the large area of the skull which was shot away?
Mr. Greer.
No. I had just seen that, you know, the head was damaged in all this part of it but I believe looking at the X-rays, I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye.
Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Greer.
I don't know which eye, I may be wrong. But they showed us the trace of it coming through but there were very little small specks on the X-rays that these professionals knew what course that the bullet had taken, the lead.

That certainly is NOT a picture of JFK. Why is it when CT's are challenged for proof of something, they provide fuzzy pictures of something that looks like a cross between Jello and a toasted cheese sandwich?

I call bullshit. Actually, that's not a strong enough term for an obvious hoax.

tried to PM you and my orientation may be wrong, but

shouldn't that be "his head was turned to the right"?

Those who were to the LEFT of him -- motorcycle cop, etal -- were sprayed.

what is the point of showing what appears to be a proxy for a drain/sewer cover and a skull placed at the same level on the floor? Was JFK crawing on his belly down Elm St???

Actually, I cannot put enough question marks behind that question when asked of such an absurd theory.

Warren had more prestige. From my understanding, it was Dulles who was controlling the "investigation."

and a long string of right wing violence behind it also being covered up and

protected --

CIA/Pentagon press --

Mr. Specter.
Did you just mention, Mr. Greer, a hole in the President's head in addition to the large area of the skull which was shot away?
Mr. Greer.
No. I had just seen that, you know, the head was damaged in all this part of it but I believe looking at the X-rays, I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye.
Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Greer.
I don't know which eye, I may be wrong. But they showed us the trace of it coming through but there were very little small specks on the X-rays that these professionals knew what course that the bullet had taken, the lead.
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President's head during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.

I've never seen that testimony before -- but which "Greer" is this --

there was a Greer who was driving the limo --

And what is this from? Did they put ALL the volumes of the WCR on the internet?

I'm sorry I never bought a copy -- I think they were a few hundred bucks.

in a discussion forum (claim about Walton) when, despite repeated requests for the maker of the claim to document it, nothing whatsoever has been offered to substantiate it?

Is that what passes for fact-finding/fact-checking among CT's? Do you understand now why I am so frustrated with CT's?

He describes perfectly how it happened. Over the eye straight out the back of head. Totally consistent with the film, witnesses and common sense.

absolutely contradicted by mounds of actual evidence.

Jesus.

I totally understand why a liberal such as yourself would get so mad at people who do not subscribe to the fringe Krazy Ozwald theory. Obviously, your only recourse would be sit in front of your computer and create hundreds of debunking posts.

By the way, it is good to say dude a lot. It connotes a detached, sincere, coolness and it makes your debunking that much more powerful.

Dude.

Hey Duderstadt, has the CIA ever CONSPIRED to replace a democratically elected government with a murderous authoritarian regime?

"one cannot embrace the conclusion that Oswald killed JFK and be a liberal"

It is strange to find a liberal who is a debunking fetishist.

It would be strange if there were a politically oriented liberal guy, who really only wanted to "debunk" people who are not in the 20% of people who believe in the fringe Krazy Ozwald theory.

Hypothetically speaking, if there were such a thing as spambots, would they be assigned to particular message boards? Once a spambot proved his skills, could he get promoted to HuffingtonPost? If he was bad would he get sent to freerepublic.com ?

with "ignored" but thoroughly enjoyed your reply nonetheless!!

:)

The ignore function is maybe not so bad.

Is it me, or are lone nut defenders really overrepresented on message boards? Look around at jfk articles. Try to find a comment section without a defense of the official story.

The funniest is John McAdams who actually spams comment sections saying don't believe this guy or that guy. He kept stalking Abraham Bolden after his book came out. Everything that Bolden went through and then McAdams takes a big dump on him all over the internet.

Classy

so their targets are all here -- makes it easy for them.

The thing is that the evidence is so overwhelming on so many of these issues that

the nonsense replies are just a waste of time. There are many who visit here to

catch up on issues and what the "ignores" try mainly to do is to disrupt the

conversations and to waste your time.

Obviously, you could be using that time to tell us more about the subject.

OTOH, I generally give everyone a long trial before I put them on "ignore."

Meanwhile, obviously, had the press told the public the truth about the wounds,

they could not have perpetuated the cover up.

When they killed JFK, they also knocked out our people's government -- and the

Democratic Party. A bit of activity got thru -- the second investigation, for instance

by the House -- Sen. Church's investigation of CIA -- but that all ended quickly with

those still effective being targeted.

ghost.

JFK and the Unspeakable is a powerful book because of the way it synthesizes not just the who, and the how, but the why. The idea of "the Unspeakable,"seems at first glance melodramatic. But as the book progresses, the reality of the nature of "the Unspeakable" becomes undeniable. It is a religious conception of human evil by philosopher Thomas Merton. Contrast these murderous forces with JFK's actions:

1) Peace not war: Cuba (twice), Laos, Berlin, Vietnam (over and over)

2) Support for Third World Nationalism (Algeria, Congo, Laos, Vietnam, etc.)

3) Detente: peaceful coexistence with Socialist countries (Secret backchannel negotiations with Khrushchev and Castro)

4) Nuclear disarmament (Partial Test Ban Treaty)

5) Involvement in the economy to channel energy and capital in growth oriented, socially positive ways (Steel crisis, Changes to tax laws especially regarding investment in US manufacturing).

Through out history, when a leader is ousted, it is typically over policy. It is easy to see how Presidents after JFK differed from his approach.

Furthermore, Oswald as the lone gunman has been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing providing a fig leaf of credibility for some is the fact that all "respectable" politicians, media outlets, and academics have pulled a 47 year Jedi mind trick on the public:

"A bullet CAN do that."

"A gunshot CAN suck one's head back toward the shooter."

"A marine CAN, at the height of the Cold War, (ceremonially) renounce his citizenship, defect to the Soviet Union, publicly state that he plans to divulge military secrets, and then freely return to the US with his Russian wife without being at all suspicious."

"A mafia connected pimp CAN suffer an attack of conscience, walk into a room full of cops, and execute the most important prisoner in the history of the United States."



"These are not the droids you seek."



It is impossible for that magical shot, if fired from a 6th floor window, to have entered from between JFK's shoulder blades and exited out of his neck. We don't even need to discuss the rest of the journey of the bullet described in the Magic Bullet Hypothesis. The very first part is impossible. There had to be more than three shots fired, but Oswald couldn't have fired them.

The refusal to let the President be autopsied by Doctors in Dallas (in violation of the law) and the subsequent medical cover up essentially proves prior knowledge of the cover story. Oswald never confessed. Numerous witnesses heard different numbers of shots coming from different locations. How did they know Oswald didn't have a naughty secret accomplice on the grassy knoll? How would the military have known to cover up the massive rear head wound?

There is not a plausible way to establish Oswald as a single shooter. The Magic Bullet is, at this point, a sad joke. It is now established that Gerald Ford edited the report to distort the location of the Magic Bullet's entry wound. This is a proven fact and even Ford admitted it in 2004. And there is not a plausible benign explanation for the medical coverup.

The CIA specializes in covert action accomplished while maintaining plausible deniability. In this case, it is no longer plausible to any objective observer.

The national security state went on to kill or assist in the killing of millions of people after JFK's death. The guiltiest parties had blood on their hands, but only in a metaphorical sense. In reality, they made billions in the sale of armaments. Every bomb that exploded in Laos corresponded to a ringing cash register stateside. It is as though JFK's ghost has cursed American liberals for not demanding justice.

And a bullet DID do that. That was shown conclusively by Dale Myers in his excellent animation.

Nearly 47 years later, all you guys have is rebunked bullshit, like a certain poster's claim that witnesses saw "gunsmoke" from the grassy knoll, even though it had been decades since any sort of rifle emitted smoke when fired. Unless, of course, you guys are claiming JFK was shot with a muzzle loader. What bullshit.

He actually weakens the magic bullet hypothesis because he demonstrably changed his Low-poly models reactions from the Zapruder film. If the Magic bullet made sense, why alter the actual reactions?

It's hard to believe that Myers has fans in the civilian population.

"Hey, make some popcorn, Dale Myers is gonna use his Commodore 64 to get his debunk on!"

Your idea of debunking something is on the order of, "Well. I think it's wrong".

BTW, what does "it's hard to believe that Myers has fans in the civilian population" mean?

http://ctka.net/dale.html

Basically the reactions of Connolly are altered to match with JFK's.

He is very stylish though. Like Don Johnson with a big mustache.

One thing we can all agree on as liberals is that post-JFK foreign policy was awful right?

The bullshit Gulf of Tonkin Resolution...

The killing of millions of Vietnamese for no justifiable reason...



Agent Orange



Carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia. (Below is a UXO victim)



Conspiring in the Sukarno's overthrow and assisting Suharto's massacre of over a million Indonesians.

There were a lot of crimes committed in our name, often without our knowledge.

It is impossible to say for sure but one wonders how the Congo would be different had the CIA not conspired to assassinate Lumumba before Kennedy was inaugurated.

The CIA should have been shattered into a thousand pieces and cast to the wind. If only one of our Presidents had had such an inclination...

There was a strong westerly wind which further indicates a shot from the front. I think 6 people smelled gunpowder.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/59wit.htm

33) Alan Smith---"…the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead…the car went about five feet and stopped." ;

nice try...

According to the x-rays the bullet entered over the right eye.


Mr. Specter.
Did you just mention, Mr. Greer, a hole in the President's head in addition to the large area of the skull which was shot away?
Mr. Greer.
No. I had just seen that, you know, the head was damaged in all this part of it but I believe looking at the X-rays, I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye.
Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?
Mr. Greer.
I don't know which eye, I may be wrong. But they showed us the trace of it coming through but there were very little small specks on the X-rays that these professionals knew what course that the bullet had taken, the lead.
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President's head during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.

Greer's testimony contradicts your claim about an entrance wound...when Specter asks him if he had mentioned a hole in addition to the large part of the skull that was blasted out, Greer says "No.". Did you read that part?

Greer pointed over his right eye and that was confirmed by the exchange between him and Specter. Greer was relaying what the technichian told him about the path of the bullet. He couldn't be wrong because he pointed to his right eye.LOL He told the truth about exactly what happened and what makes perfect sense.

Mr. Greer.
No. I had just seen that, you know, the head was damaged in all this part of it but I believe looking at the X-rays, I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the right eye.
Mr. Greer.
I may be wrong.
Mr. Specter.
You don't know which eye?

in the segment you cite above Greer makes it clear that he is referring to an x-ray he saw that showed fragments that didn't come through, meaning there was no exit, and rested in the sinus cavity of the right eye.

You are twisting his plain words to make it sound like he is saying something he isn't. Typical CT quote mining that is also disproven by the shot of JFK on the autopsy table from above in which there is clearly no "bullet hole" above his right eye. Trying to reason with you is pointless.

THE BULLET ENTERED OVER THE RIGHT EYE WHICH CAUSED A MASSIVE HOLE BEHIND HIS RIGHT EAR.

Mr. Greer.
I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right?
Mr. Greer.
Upper right side.
Mr. Specter.
Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. Greer.
The skull was completely--this part was completely gone.

JFK had an entrance wound over his right eye. Take your time.

We've already been over that. Greer pointed to his right eye and Arlen confirmed that. Greer also motions from upper right back to rear and Specter confirms that too. He describes the massive hole in the right rear and small entrance hole below that.LOL

Mr. Specter.
Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. Kellerman.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
More to the right side of the head?
Mr. Kellerman.
Right. This was removed.
Mr. Specter.
When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. Kellerman.
The skull part was removed.
Mr. Specter.
All right.
Representative Ford.
Above the ear and back?
Mr. Kellerman.
To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.
Mr. Specter.
When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. Kellerman.
It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. Specter.
Fine. Proceed.
Mr. Kellerman.
Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. Kellerman.
Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. Specter.
In his hairline?
Mr. Kellerman.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. Kellerman.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. Kellerman.
The little finger.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. Kellerman.
Right.
Mr. Specter.
Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent?
Mr. Kellerman.
Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below.
Mr. Specter.
You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below.
Mr. Kellerman.
That is correct; about that, sir.
Mr. Specter.
All right. What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the President?
Mr. Kellerman.
The other wound that I noticed was on his shoulder.
Mr. Specter.
Which shoulder.
Mr. Kellerman.
Right shoulder.

Mr. Kellerman.
Actually, from all the X-rays that were taken, and we viewed them all together when I say "we," I am saying the medical people who were in the morgue at the time, the two Bureau agents, myself, and also Mr. Greer, who was in there with me, naturally, they were looking for pieces of fragmentation of this bullet. There was none; only one piece to my knowledge. That was removed inside above the eye, the right eye.

Mr. Kellerman.
Yes, of the numerous X-rays that were taken mainly of the skull, the head. The reason for it was that through all the probing which these gentlemen were trying to pick up little pieces of evidence in the form of shell fragments, they were unable to locate any. From the X-rays, when you placed the X-ray up against the light the whole head looked like a little mass of stars, there must have been 30, 40 lights where these pieces were so minute that they couldn't be reached. However, all through this series of X-rays this was the one that they found, through X-ray that was above the right eye, and they removed that.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page81.php

Specter wasn't talking to Greer about any fucking entrance wound. He was asking Greer about where the x-rays showed fragments from the bullet were. You start with your conclusion like it's a fact (it isn't, as noted by multiple pictures and the autopsists), then you subvert what witnesses are saying to try to make it look like they are talking about something totally different. I'm done.