Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

JFK Assassination

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    WakeUp, this one has been well covered by the debunkers. There have been a good few ballistic tests carried out which show a similar reaction to this when he is shot from the angle that that is claimed by the official version of events.



    Also:



    This is one of the CTs where I'm pretty confident that we don't know the whole story, but for my money, this part of the official story seems to hold up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    WakeUp, this one has been well covered by the debunkers. There have been a good few ballistic tests carried out which show a similar reaction to this when he is shot from the angle that that is claimed by the official version of events.

    This is one of the CTs where I'm pretty confident that we don't know the whole story, but for my money, this part of the official story seems to hold up.


    Jackie may have been trying to retrieve a large chunk of head ? :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Talk E wrote: »
    Jackie may have been trying to retrieve a large chunk of head ? :pac:
    Well, I presume she was in a bit of shock...I always assumed she was trying to get out of there - it probably didn't seem like the safest or nicest place to be sitting just then... :eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    There is a huge thread on the JFK assass here. 4,000+ replies, every conceivable piece of evidence. Will save some folk a lot of leg work.:)

    Enjoy

    http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=125038


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    This is from the last page.

    I believe it shows the actual bullet enter the back of the head and leave the front.

    Not for the squeemish

    back-exit-slow_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

    Love this gif too haha

    troll_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Talk E wrote: »
    Jackie may have been trying to retrieve a large chunk of head ? :pac:
    Well, I presume she was in a bit of shock...I always assumed she was trying to get out of there - it probably didn't seem like the safest or nicest place to be sitting just then... :eek:
    It's funny how that incident has had more written words over the years ie ,was she trying to escape the limo or was she trying to retrive a piece of her husbands brian ? and yet it all happened in seconds but (to me anyway ) it's obiously somebody reacting in total shock and confusion of the moement , the way a child might put their hands up to deflect a slap but is not sure where it's coming from and in Jackies case , she's also subconciously reaching for that piece of brain matter .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,838 ✭✭✭DapperGent


    DapperGent wrote: »
    I find it impossible to believe that Oswald was alone, whose patsy he was I really have no idea.

    If I had to guess I'd say the mob, Giancana was one crazy gangster who didn't get defied.

    From the later televised confrontations between Bobby Kennedy and Giancana I think that Bobby believed Giancana was behind it too. There was much more going on there than the little rottweiler's hatred of organised crime methinks.
    lol what a ****ing moron.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23 symboybot


    WakeUp, this one has been well covered by the debunkers. There have been a good few ballistic tests carried out which show a similar reaction to this when he is shot from the angle that that is claimed by the official version of events.



    Also:



    This is one of the CTs where I'm pretty confident that we don't know the whole story, but for my money, this part of the official story seems to hold up.

    Sorry, these videos are not very convincing. First, 21 out of 22 medical witnesses at Parkland hospital saw a gaping hole of around four inches in diameter in the back of JFK’ s head, as did numerous witnesses at Dealey Plaza and at the autopsy at the Naval hospital at Bethesda. Some witnesses also saw a small entry wound in the right temple hairline as well as an entry wound in the throat. In addition, witnesses saw a hole in the limousine windshield that was concave on the inside surface and a small round hole on the outside, indicating a transiting bullet through the windshield from front to back. Other witnesses attest to witnessing the windshield being removed from the limousine, used as a model to create a replacement windshield which was then installed in place of the original and the original was then destroyed.

    Enough evidence exists that more than one shooter from more than one direction took more than three shots total, making the issue of whether one or more shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD a moot point. If there were shots from more than one direction, then by definition there was a conspiracy.

    There is also extensively documented evidence that the Zapruder film was altered by a process called rotoscoping to paint on each frame of the film, obscuring the gaping hole in the back of the head, reported by so many witnesses. After rotoscoped changes the film is then copied to make the copy look like an original film. Further, witnesses at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) testified to receiving “the Zapruder film” from a highly classified CIA film lab at the Kodak main industrial facility in Rochester, New York on the weekend of the assassination. This lab had the equipment necessary to alter the original film (including rotoscoping – painting on the original film on a frame by frame basis) and then printing a frame by frame altered copy that would appear to be the original. When the original was first developed it was a double image 16 mm film that was then split in half to make a regular double length 8 mm film. When the film was returned to the NPIC from the secret CIA film lab in Rochester by Secret Service Agents it was, magically, once again a 16 mm un-split film that again had to be split for projection with an 8 mm projector, indicating that it was not the already split original film. The only reason to re-create a copy of the film would be to allow alterations of the film. Further evidence of film alteration is also presented with extensive documentation.

    There is extensive evidence presented of the altering of evidence, including not only the Zapruder film, but also JFK’s body, autopsy x-rays, autopsy photos, the windshield of the limousine, as well as destruction of murder site evidence (the cleaning of the interior of the limousine and subsequent removal and replacement of seats and upholstery in the limousine at the orders of LBJ).

    Further there is evidence of two other assassination set-ups, one in Chicago three weeks prior to November 22nd and one other in Miami one week prior to November 22nd. The attempt in Chicago was prevented by the cancellation of the President’s motorcade in that city after an informant by the name of “Lee” reported the plot. That hit attempt even included another “disenchanted former marine” who recently obtained a job in a building overlooking the motorcade route, who was set up to be the patsy, by the name Thomas Arthur Valley with four professional hit men with telescopic sights set up in adjacent buildings to do the real kill shots – just like in Dealey Plaza. The Secret Service was notified of the Chicago plot but did not forward the report to the Dallas Secret Service contingent. The evidence of the Chicago was then buried for nearly thirty years.

    Extensively documented evidence for all of this and more is included in three works recently published. The first is probably the best for understanding the over-view of who wanted JFK killed and why. It is “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters”, by James W. Douglas (pub 2008). This book is the results of numerous previously unreleased government documents released to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) by all government agencies (under threat of subpoena) as mandated by the JFK Assassination Records Act of 1992. That act established the ARRB which finished up its work in the fall of 1998.

    The second work, “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board – The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK” (pub 2010) by Douglas P. Horne – Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board. This five volume large-format soft-cover set has extensive document information including a 181 page chapter, entitled, “The Zapruder Film Mystery” which documents the evidence of alteration of the Zapruder film, as well as extensive re-interviews of the autopsy pathologists, numerous autopsy witnesses, and many of the Parkland Hospital medical witnesses, and evidence of alteration of the autopsy x-rays, photographs, and autopsy reports, plus extensive descriptions of the politics involved in the formation, reports of, and political limitations and obstructions of the ARRB process.

    These two works plus a third, “LBJ – The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination” by Phillip F. Nelson (pub 2010) which extensively documents LBJ’s history of corruption, blackmail, commie-baiting, and conspiracy to murder in 17 instances, including the murder of his own sister by his on-staff hit man, Malcolm Wallace. These three works, together, provide a compelling, extensively documented over-view of the assassination and the powers that be that accomplished it (including the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, military intelligence, the mafia, Texas “big oil” multi-millionaires, J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ). These works document the means, methods, connections, motives, and participants of the coup d’etat that changed America, the world, and history, for the worse.

    All three of these recently published works are available in paperback on amazon.com or amazon.ca. Reviews of all three are available on amazon.com. If you really want to understand what happened and be part of making sure this travesty can never happen again, you need to read these three works. It is well worth the time and effort. Your world will never be the same, but it is better to know the awful truth than continue in blind ignorance. Only be being an informed public, can we prevent this “crime of the century” from ever happening again. Nothing less than the survival of American democracy is at stake!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    This gaping hole ? (mod might wanna put a warning on thread title)

    attachment.php?attachmentid=9573&stc=1&d=1264694428

    attachment.php?attachmentid=9575&stc=1&d=1264694519

    WallPaint305.jpg

    and this windscreen ?

    WallPaint294.jpg

    WallPaint266-1.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    this is from jfk lancer regarding jackie kennedys testimony and jfks head wound .

    Warren Commission Suppressed Jackie's
    Testimony On JFK's Head Wound

    Court Reporter's Tape Shows
    Additional Description Withheld


    Dallas, TX -- August 5, 2001 -- JFK Lancer, an historical research firm reports that the Court Reporter's tape shows Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony before the Warren Commission had additional descriptions which were withheld.
    Mrs. Kennedy testified in a short private session held at her home in Washington, D.C., with Chief Justice Earl Warren, Commission General Council J. Lee Rankin, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and a court reporter in attendance. Testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission was made public in the fall of 1964. Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony was also released containing her description of her husbands wounds which read :

    "And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything."
    But a second section in which she described the wounds she saw carried only the notation: (Reference to Wounds Deleted).
    Although very few Americans actually read those transcripts, historians and researchers who did read them were outraged, and waged a legal battle to have the omitted testimony released. In the early 1970s, a court decision required the United States Government to disclose to the public the contents of the still classified section of Mrs. Kennedy's 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Her previously withheld statement read:

    " I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
    Releasing this previously withheld section gave researchers what was assumed to be Mrs. Kennedy's complete description of the President's head wounds. Researchers took for granted that the hand-typed transcript page released by the National Archives from the official records of the Warren Commission ended the matter.
    However, new analysis reveals that the original court tape actually reads:

    "... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."
    Filmmaker Mark Sobel found the discrepancy while doing research for a forthcoming documentary on JFK. Sobel explained, "I was quite surprised to find that Mrs. Kennedy was not asked for more detail --- she had an opportunity to view the wounds longer and closer than any other person as they originally existed. Given the seemingly contradictory testimony by the doctors who treated the President at Parkland Hospital in Dallas just after the shooting and the Doctors who performed the autopsy at Bethesda many hours later, Mrs. Kennedy's testimony would appear critical."
    Sobel filed under the Freedom of Information Act to have the court reporter's original tape of Mrs. Kennedy's testimony unsealed, citing that the content had already been fully declassified by the courts and that it was in the best interest of the public for the accuracy of the existing transcript to be verified. Sobel explained, "As I compared the 1964 transcript to the original court reporter's paper tape, I reached a sentence officially transcribed by the Warren Commission as: "I could see a piece of his skull, and I remember that it was flesh colored"words on the original paper taped no longer matched up."
    Court Reporter Kathy Bradford of Bradford Court Reporting of Dallas, Texas, agreed. Bradford reviewed the transcript from the archives and certified Mrs. Kennedy's complete statement was not found in the Warren Commission's version..
    This extra description was almost certainly witheld from the Commissioners and Legal Staff as well, since these descriptions are missing in the typed transcript that is contained in the actual Warren Commission Records --- before it was finally released publicly in its entirety.
    Apprised of these new details, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. stated, "Given the lack of follow-up in Mrs. Kennedy's description to exactly what she saw, these details could have been valuable to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that reviewed the medical evidence." Mantik is one of the few doctors allowed to view President Kennedy's original autopsy materials in the National Archives.
    Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, seen in films and photos in Dealey Plaza climbing onto the rear of the limousine, stated in his Warren Commission testimony,
    "Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car."
    Debra Conway of JFK Lancer, says that the court reporter's tape is now on their web site. Conway stated, "Mrs. Kennedy also describes this piece of skull to historian Theodore White in her famous 'Camelot' interview where she told him, 'I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--' This is very similar to what she said to the Warren Commission."
    Conway went on to explain, "There were pieces of skull found in the street and in the limousine. The piece of skull described by Mrs. Kennedy could have been one of those later found in the street, the limousine, or an avulsed piece still attached to his head."
    Researcher Barb Junkkarinen, who specializes in the medical evidence of the Kennedy assassination and is the Director of the JFK Alliance for Open Archives organization, told JFK Lancer, "The real 'find' here is that two specific descriptions of the head wound by Mrs. Kennedy (that the skull piece was wedge shaped, and that it had little ridges at the top) are not included in what is supposed to be the full and complete transcript of her testimony."
    In his memoirs, Senator Arlen Specter, a Junior Council for the Warren Commission in 1964, suggests that the minimal testimony taken from Mrs. Kennedy was due to Earl Warren wishing to be protective of her, and that the handling of her testimony created some distress among other Commissioners and Legal Staff. However, in formerly Top Secret transcripts of the meetings of the seven Commissioners, Commissioner John J. McCloy repeatedly emphasized the importance of obtaining such testimony as quickly as possible "She's the best witness," he said "as to how those bullets struck her husband."
    Junkkarinen adds, "Why they would withhold an accurate description is open to debate, but the fact that they put out an altered transcript is telling. How many other transcripts may have fallen victim to the same shenanigans? This is a find that proves alteration of original evidence, and that is important.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    Silent witness of JFK assassination comes forward.

    Interesting thread on ATS

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread713461/pg1


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    sadly miss mooremon was taking a picture ( a very famous picture ) so in that respect she didnt really see what jean saw in those vital seconds and then (as many did she dove on the floor telling jean to get down ) . there were pictures taken before jfk ever arrived on elm street and so i can only assume these are the pictures that jean was reffering to .someone may have other info on that .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 188 ✭✭33


    Fergus I've never put as much effort into anything as you have with JFK, I know and have known (but not as much detail as you) that JFK was taken out by his underlings, I enjoy your post's, but for me JFK is dead, but I must admit this is the very subject that took me to the whole CT thing to begin with and it grew and faded like the season's, you are alway's in full bloom, keep it up!, good reading, but try format it a little, easier on the eyes and brain, all I'm saying is space your paragraphs;), nice1 mate.

    33


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    thank you 33 for taking the time to reply and i try and will try to make a post easy to read and better visualy if i can . some times one talks of a subject that one has no pictures to post (such as the grassy knoll ,there are no pictures of behind the fence at the time of the shots ) and like wise with the killing of officer tippit no cameras were there ,and some times one posts an article from the internet and this is text and contains no pictures .

    thanks again for your comment 33 i really appreciate your taking time to comment on my posts ,i would be interested in your thoughts on the case whatever they may be .talk soon .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 188 ✭✭33


    thank you 33 for taking the time to reply and i try and will try to make a post easy to read and better visualy if i can . some times one talks of a subject that one has no pictures to post (such as the grassy knoll ,there are no pictures of behind the fence at the time of the shots ) and like wise with the killing of officer tippit no cameras were there ,and some times one posts an article from the internet and this is text and contains no pictures .

    thanks again for your comment 33 i really appreciate your taking time to comment on my posts ,i would be interested in your thoughts on the case whatever they may be .talk soon .

    Well Fergus if the truth must be known about my thoughts, I will say that the CIA took him out, but he wasn't a hero, he was genuine, but with elite faults, money and power brings that!

    Now going into detail as you do, I dont bother anymore like you do, but you are the brown bomber of the jfk scene, you root it out and display it, and proudly so, and best of luck to you, but I've learned over the year's that only some will see the light, while others never will.

    But be sure that lurkers will be reading your posts and taking it in, they may not reply but you will show them things that they never knew, including me.

    I 100% believe he was taken out by an up and coming CIA head, that a few years later actually got his job as did his son, I'm not saying he was a gunman, but a big cog in the scheme of things, young as he may have been, but daddy got him where he and his crew where heading to, prescott, thats the daddy's name!,

    I focus more on the why and not the who and what, all roads that lead away from the CIA are false roads left to confuse the subject.

    Fergus I'll hope to join you soon in the intricate details of this fairly open and shut case in my eyes, but we can never really prove anything, sure if we could we'de end up in the history forum, if it exists?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i agree we will never really know the truth the 100% truth ,we already know a great deal (even from just reading the warren commison testimony ) but i cant see us ever knowing the whole truth . its been 47 years and im now 42 and i dont believe for a second that i will live to see the truth come out ,in 1964 the files were locked away for 75 years 47 years later most files are still locked away .

    now we know from expert warren commison testimony that ce399 the magic bullet could not have caused all of john connallys wounds (namely his wrist wound ) this makes the single bullet theory a lie and thus a fourth shot had to be fired . so if oswald was guilty he had help and a second person was not only helping him but shooting also which makes it a conspiricy .

    jfk was no angel and if im honest i dont like him as a person (he was a womaniser ) he used his power and his name to womanise even before he was president but he did it also while president , in all truth fullness bobby was the same as was teddy . that said i believe jfk and bobby as politicians could have (and would have ) ended wars and changed this world and made it so much better (like wise with dr king ) but there is no money in peace .

    the people who killed jfk knew full well that america loved the kennedys (the black people probably more than most ) jfk would have gotten a second term untill 1968 ,bobby would have won in 1968 and been president for 2 terms untill 1976 and then teddy could have done like wise untill 1984 (thats 24 years of kennedys and no wars and no more federal reserve ) that couldnt be allowed . jfk was assassinated ,bobby seemed to go along with the official story (in public ) behind closed doors was different and we all know what happened with teddy .

    i think your focus is best not the who and the how but the why , there is a line in the movie jfk (i know its not 1005 accurate ) but x played by donald sutherland says the who and the how (oswald /ruby /the cubans ) is just scenery for the public and keeps them from asking the real question "why" who covered it up and who benifited from it ?. a few names spring to mind automaticly one such name was gerald ford who sat on the warren commision and later became president .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23 symboybot


    Obviously the names Lyndon Baines Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, and Richard Nixon need to be amongst those names "who spring to mind automatically" when the question, "who covered it up and who benefited from it" is asked. In addition to those names there are also the organizations such as the FBI, the CIA, and the military-industrial-mafia complex, to say nothing of Texas "Big Oil" millionaires such as H. L. Hunt and Clint Murchison.

    In Ford's case, his direct benefit didn't come until he was needed to replace the indicted (for taking bribes in the White House) Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. After that it was a simple matter to exchange Richard Nixon's resignation (in order to avoid impeachment) for Gerald's Ford inheritance of the presidency (Ford was never elected president or vice president). In exchange for becoming president, all Ford had to do was pardon Richard Nixon for all crimes he may have committed during the entire term(s) of his presidency. Something Ford was only too happy to do. Johnson, Nixon, and Ford became president precisely because JFK was murdered, thereby immensely changing American history, for the worse. None of them would have achieved the oval office if not for JFK's assassination, and all of them were involved, had foreknowledge, or participated in the cover up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    here is an interesting photograph comparing the rifle in the national archives with the rifle in the backyard photographs .
    Rifle-BYversusNARA.jpg

    so is it the same rifle ? .


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Fergus have you read the testimony of Jack D. White ?

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    yes ive seen his testimony its an interesting read ,thanks for posting it .


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    yes ive seen his testimony its an interesting read ,thanks for posting it .

    Yeah it's an interesting case overall. I'd love to get stuck into it but it's fairly daunting tbh. There is mountains of information that has been analysed in minute detail already. You seem to know your stuff though. You should edit Wikipedia articles, I'd imagine there is a war going on there over every detail on JFK.

    Incidentally Fergus, have you read Final Judgement?

    This is taken from a review
    When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad.
    What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA.
    The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons.
    In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening--and fully documented--detail. For example, did you know:
    * That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival?
    * That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel?

    * That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky?
    * That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination?
    http://www.amazon.com/Final-Judgment-Missing-Assassination-Conspiracy/dp/0974548405


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    yes there is quite a bit to get your head around with this case ,but i find i dont mind going online researching reading testimony etc you would start reading and before you know it about 3 hours have gone by . but one thing i never ever do is to read some thing and take it as 100% accurate (likewise if someone posted or told me something ) i would go and research it and double and treble check it .

    people trying to learn about this case can very easily be misled by certain online sites and so called authors (gerald posner being one such author ) he states in case closed that when oswalds co workers and supervisor went down to the 1st floor for lunch around 11.40 to 11.45 oswald stayed there on the 6th floor and went about assembling his rifle and snipers nest , when in fact testimony shows posner to be inaccurate and that oswald was seen on the 1st floor atleast 2 times about 11.50 and midday (surely posner would be well aware of those testimonies ) that can only indicate to me that he is deliberately trying to mislead and one must ask them selves why .

    i havent read that book but it looks very interesting ,i certainly intend to get a few books to stick my head into as i havent bought a book in a bit now .


  • Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭jamesie_boy





    For some reason I always associate this song with JFK'S assassination on the zapruder film. I think it'd be the perfect background music, even on a history documentary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/123209-if-oswald-was-innocent-how-does-one-explain-these-actions-on-his-part.html

    If Oswald was innocent, how does one explain these actions on his part?

    In any crime there are individuals that do certain things that make them LOOK guilty but occasionally there is an innocent explanation behind their behavior. Of course the police (or historians) have to weight the supporting evidence to see if the alternate explanation holds water. For instance, if a car is seen fleeing the scene of a crime and the following day the car is tracked down. The driver says that he was racing to the hospital to visit his dying mother. Obviously, the police will check up on his story. If his mother in fact WAS at a hospital that WAS in the same direction he was seen driving, and IF credible eyewitnesses can place him at her side when he claimed to be there then he is no longer a prime suspect in the unsolved crime involving the getaway car. If, however his mother died years ago and it is clear that the evidence doesn't support his story he is STILL a prime suspect in the unsolved crime.

    The same is true with Oswald. Virtually EVERYTHING Oswald did on the day before and the day of the assassination drips with guilt. To the casual researcher it appears obvious that Oswald was guilty, but are there alternate explanations that could acquit Oswald of guilt? And an important secondary question: Is there supporting evidence to lend credence to the alternate explanation? For instance, it is often claimed that Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD to make Oswald appear guilty, but this claim doesn't really hold water does it since all bullets were matched to that very rifle and secondly, there is no evidence that Oswald's rifle was stolen from Ruth Paine's garage prior to the assassination. And an important third point, there is no evidence of any strangers carrying mysterious packages in the TSBD in the days prior to the assassination. It is EASY to CLAIM the rifle was planted but then there is a list adjoining questions that must be answered, and this is where it gets tough for Oswald defenders.

    Let's give the conspiracy advocates the chance to really shine. Listed below are twelve things involving Oswald's behavior that make him appear VERY guilty. IS THERE an alternate explanation that could lend credence to the belief that Oswald was an innocent person framed for the assassination of President Kennedy?

    1. Oswald broke tradition and traveled to Irving on THURSDAY afternoon after work when he had NEVER done this in the past (with the exception of one time in October when he visited Irving for June's birthday party.) Oswald's story of picking up curtain rods doesn't really hold water does it since his bedroom already had curtain rods, and since there was no pressing need to pick up curtain rods when he was scheduled to visit Irving the following day anyway. Why DID Oswald decide to make an unexpected visit to Irving the very night before the President was assassinated with a rifle linked to Oswald and no one else? And an important follow-up question is, why would Oswald bring his "curtain rods" into work with him on the morning of the assassination? Was Oswald really that nervous that there was a roaming gang of curtain rod thieves that may possible break into Frazier's vehicle in the TSBD parking lot and steal his curtain rods? Was it really that pressing that Oswald carry simple curtain rods into the TSBD with him, thus running the risk he would forget them, or they would get damages, broken, stolen, or lost? Why not simply leave them in Frazier's vehicle until after work when he could drop them off at his boarding house?

    2. Why did Oswald leave his wedding ring and virtually all of the money he had in the world with Marina the morning of the assassination? If Oswald was simply going to work that day and expected to return to Irving later that evening why leave money and his wedding ring in a tea cup for Marina to find later? Any sensible ideas?

    3. What WAS in that long brown package Oswald brought to work with him on the morning of the assassination? Remember he told Wesley Frazier that he didn't bring his lunch that day and said the package contained curtain rods, but strangely no curtain rods were found in the TSBD after the assassination and Oswald is not witnessed by anyone eating any lunch that day. And even though there was some discrepancy in the length of the package it still does not resolve what WAS in it, does it? Any possible explanations?

    4. Where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination? He claimed to be in the first floor lunchroom, yet other employees KNOWN to have been there (James Jarman for one) said they didn't recall seeing Oswald in there after 12:00 noon. And also remember that during his interrogation Oswald slipped up and told DPD interrogators that after the assassination he "came downstairs." In James Douglass's flawed work, "JFK and the Unspeakable" he resurrects the old theory that Oswald is seen in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination (in the Altgens photograph). But this theory reveals the historical weakness of Douglass's book since it seems highly unlikely that Oswald would have been in the doorway to the TSBD at the time of the assassination yet when questioned by police Oswald was too dumb to tell police this little tidbit. So where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination?

    5. Why was Oswald's rifle found on the same floor that eyewitnesses placed a gunman at the time of the assassination? If Oswald really was innocent of any involvement how did his rifle get there?

    6. Why didn't Oswald stick around after the assassination to watch the story unfold in Dealey Plaza. Oswald was arguably THE most politically literate employee of the TSBD. Oswald defenders even point out that Oswald was fond of Kennedy and his family, yet at the same time these Oswald defenders fail to see anything unusual about Oswald refusing to remain on the scene of the most important event he would ever witness in his lifetime, but instead takes off on foot running, jogging, walking seven blocks away from Dealey Plaza. Any alternate explanation for this strange behavior?

    7. Why wouldn't Oswald patiently await the arrival of the Marsailles Street bus at the bus stop across the street from the TSBD? Remember that there was a bus stop at the intersection of Houston and Elm where Oswald could have calmly sat and awaited for the arrival of his bus, but he chooses instead to race seven full blocks and then hail the bus in mid-intersection before climbing aboard. Does this scenerio makes sense if Oswald is innocent of murdering Kennedy? Of course it makes PERFECT sense if he is guilty and fleeing the scene of his crime. Any good explanation for this odd behavior?

    8. Can anyone explain why Oswald would have asked the cab driver to drive him four blocks PAST his residence on North Beckley street instead of simply dropping him off in front of his house? Is there a logical explanation for Oswald to pay the extra money to the cab driver and then walk nearly a half-mile BACK to the same address the cab driver just drove past?

    9. Why would Oswald change all of his clothes and pick up his loaded revolver in between arriving home and leaving for the movie theater? The clothing he changed into were not nicer nor more shabby than what he wore to work, and there is no reason to believe they were dirty or unkempt and the reason for him changing clothing and picking up his revolver seems to only make sense when one realizes that he was guilty of committing a crime and obviously wanted to change his appearance and have his revolver on him in the event police stopped him. Is there a logical alternate explanation supported by either common sense or logic? On the day President Reagan was shot (March 30, 1981) I left work early to watch the event unfold on television, but I didn't race home change my clothes, pick up my revolver, and take off on foot roaming the streets of Livonia, Michigan. Why did an innocent Oswald do exactly this?

    10. Why would Oswald sneak into the Texas Theater without paying the 75-cent admission cost--especially when one realizes that Oswald had over $12 on him at the time? If Oswald was innocently entering the theater to watch a movie, why not buy a ticket like everyone else? Of course if Oswald is fleeing police and panicking then his behavior is perfectly understandable. Is there a logical alternate explanation for this blatantly illegal act?

    11. Why would Oswald stand up in the theater, produce his revolver, and attempt to murder Dallas police officer Nick McDonald during some routine questioning. Wouldn't an innocent Oswald naturally assume that the police were there to question him about sneaking into the theater without paying? Is it logical to conclude that Oswald would risk the death penalty in Texas over a 75 cent movie ticket? And while we are on the topic, what did Oswald mean when he stood and yelled out, "Well it's all over now!" WHAT was "all over now"? Was Oswald referring to the movie? Was he referring to his weekend? Was he referring to his movie-filled afternoon break? Or was he referring to his flight from police?
    Any innocent explanations for this behavior?

    12. Why wouldn't Oswald admit to owning a rifle? If Oswald was innocent of any involvement AND if no bullets had been matched to Oswald's rifle yet AND if Oswald hadn't brought his rifle to work that morning wouldn't an innocent Oswald have no good reason to deny owning a rifle? They were perfectly legal to own in Dallas and Oswald would naturally assume that his rifle was still in the garage at Ruth Paine's home, wouldn't he? Why would Oswald repeatedly lie about owning a rifle if it wasn't used in the assassination? How would his rifle, safely wrapped up in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage possibly link him to a crime he didn't commit? His repeated denials of ownership only make sense when one realizes that Oswald was guilty and he knew that admitting his ownership of the murder weapon would point guilt in HIS direction.

    Or IS there an innocent explanation for his repeated denials of rifle ownership?

    Good luck. I think everyone will enjoy reading the alternate explanations for Oswald's seemingly guilty behavior. Of course IF Oswald IS innocent there should be logical explanations for ALL of these events.

    Right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    we in ireland all know about such cases as the guildford 4 (and anne maguire and her family ) as well as the birmingham 6 and these people probably appeared as guilty as sin and yet the truth was very different ,things are not always how they appear and that i believe is very true of most aspects of the jfk assassination .

    1/ "Oswald broke tradition and traveled to Irving on THURSDAY afternoon after work when he had NEVER done this in the past "

    the only reason that is regarded as suspicious is because buell wesley frazier told the police oswald said he was going home to collect some curtain rods (the same curtain rods frazier said oswald had the next morning in his truck wrapped in paper ) the same package that both frazier and his sister linnie randall both said was no more than 24 inches and which frazier described oswald as holding it cupped in the palm of his hand and tucked up under his arm pit . the lenght of the parcell (given by randall and frazier )at 24 inches is not compatable with the measurements of the carcano and those measurements make it physicly impossible for oswald to have carried the broken down carcano in the fashion frazier described .

    "Why DID Oswald decide to make an unexpected visit to Irving the very night before the President was assassinated with a rifle linked to Oswald and no one else?"
    when did frazier say oswald carried a rifle in his truck either on thursday night or friday morning ? thats a patently false statment . why would oswald leave the curtain rods in fraziers truck (frazier would be heading back to irving friday evening ) oswald was going to north beckley and so was not getting a lift from frazier and so would not leave the curtain rods in the truck . we have to add to this that oswald denied ever saying anything about curtain rods to frazier (or carrying them that morning in his truck ) the curtain rod story only came from frazier ,oswald said he only carried his lunch and had no 35.8 inch long by 6 inch wide package when going into work that morning ,jack dougherty when asked was very sure that when he saw oswald enter the building he did not see him carry such a package .

    2/"Why did Oswald leave his wedding ring and virtually all of the money he had in the world with Marina the morning of the assassination? If Oswald was simply going to work that day and expected to return to Irving later that evening why leave money and his wedding ring in a tea cup for Marina to find later? Any sensible ideas?"

    yes true oswald left money and i believe his wedding ring as he awoke late for work and left in a hurry (who of us have never done some thing like that ) incidentely he left quite a large sum of money £120 thats a vast amount for a man who worked for about $1.25 (anyone wonder how he came to have so much money ? ) and by the way it wasnt all the money he had in the world as he was arrested with $12 dollars on him thats nearly half his weekly wage .

    3/"What WAS in that long brown package Oswald brought to work with him on the morning of the assassination? Remember he told Wesley Frazier that he didn't bring his lunch that day and said the package contained curtain rods, but strangely no curtain rods were found in the TSBD after the assassination and Oswald is not witnessed by anyone eating any lunch that day. And even though there was some discrepancy in the length of the package it still does not resolve what WAS in it, does it? Any possible explanations?"
    we only have fraziers word about the curtain rods and the package that he says he saw at close range could not be the broken down carcano which when broken down was 35.8 inches long . oswald was seen atleast two times between 11.50 and midday on the first floor (where he said he went for lunch) first by his supervisor bill shelly and then by eddie piper (that is in the warren comission vollumes ) carolyn arnold claims to have seem him also eating his lunch all tho there is debate as to the exact time she saw him either 12.15 or 12.25 . so to say no one saw him is again patently false .

    4/" Where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination? He claimed to be in the first floor lunchroom, yet other employees KNOWN to have been there (James Jarman for one) said they didn't recall seeing Oswald in there after 12:00 noon. And also remember that during his interrogation Oswald slipped up and told DPD interrogators that after the assassination he "came downstairs." In James Douglass's flawed work, "JFK and the Unspeakable" he resurrects the old theory that Oswald is seen in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination (in the Altgens photograph). But this theory reveals the historical weakness of Douglass's book since it seems highly unlikely that Oswald would have been in the doorway to the TSBD at the time of the assassination yet when questioned by police Oswald was too dumb to tell police this little tidbit. So where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination?"

    oswald did tell the police he was outside with bill shelly and others so thats another factual error ,harold norman did say in his warren commission testimony that while he was in the first floor lunchroom with jarmin that someone was there but he couldnt say who . oswald did say that while he ate his lunch two negros came in one was called junior and the other one was very short (that was norman ) how could oswald if he is on the 6th floor know who was in the lunchroom ? especially since on that day of all days that some staff changed their habits some eating quickly in the lunchroom to go out side and see jfk others going directly outside ,how could oswald have picked the only two men who were most certainly in the lunchroom untill some time between 12.10 and 12.15 ?. also its wrongly said that oswald claimed to have eaten with jarmin and norman and that he said he was with bill shelly outside ,both claims are false because oswald was known as man who sat by himself /ate by himself and talked very little to people all oswald claimed was that while he was eating jarmin and norman were there (not that he ate with them ) and that bill shelly was there in the area where he was standing outside (that does not mean he spoke to shelly or even that shelly saw him ) these people took no real interest in oswald their focus was on seeing jfk .

    exactly how does oswald slip up when saying he went down stairs after the assassination ? of course he goes down stairs after the assasination how else can he leave the building (which he admitted doing as did many other people ) i dont believe for a second that oswald is the man in the doorway in altgens its billy lovelady oswald was on his way upstairs (or already up there ) buying a coke at that time .

    5/"5. Why was Oswald's rifle found on the same floor that eyewitnesses placed a gunman at the time of the assassination? If Oswald really was innocent of any involvement how did his rifle get there?"

    was it oswalds rifle ? the rifle they say oswald ordered is not the rifle they say now resides in the archives (its the wrong lenght) the only thing that links oswald to the rifle is the name a hiddel (nothing more ) the commision was fully aware that oswalds po box was setup only to recieve mail for lee oswald (see the po box application form which i posted earlier in this thread stating only one name lee oswald ) a hiddel is nowhere to be seen on that application form so a hiddel was no more entitled to recieve mail at that po box than i am . there is no record of oswald ever recieving or picking up the rifle ,also the said the serial number on the rifle was unique to that rifle and that was and is factually untrue and inaccurate .

    dallas police chief jesse curry said
    "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."

    6/ "Why didn't Oswald stick around after the assassination to watch the story unfold in Dealey Plaza. Oswald was arguably THE most politically literate employee of the TSBD. Oswald defenders even point out that Oswald was fond of Kennedy and his family, yet at the same time these Oswald defenders fail to see anything unusual about Oswald refusing to remain on the scene of the most important event he would ever witness in his lifetime, but instead takes off on foot running, jogging, walking seven blocks away from Dealey Plaza. Any alternate explanation for this strange behavior?"

    other people left the building along with oswald so should their behaviour be viewed as equally stange ? ,oswald was on his lunch break and was entitled to leave and was allowed to leave having been vouched for .yes it must be said that he did not return but he said that he did not think there was any point returning as he didnt think any work would be done in the remaing few work hours (which would have been the case ) that said oswalds trip to the theatre was for more than a place to hide .

    7/ "Why wouldn't Oswald patiently await the arrival of the Marsailles Street bus at the bus stop across the street from the TSBD? Remember that there was a bus stop at the intersection of Houston and Elm where Oswald could have calmly sat and awaited for the arrival of his bus, but he chooses instead to race seven full blocks and then hail the bus in mid-intersection before climbing aboard. Does this scenerio makes sense if Oswald is innocent of murdering Kennedy? Of course it makes PERFECT sense if he is guilty and fleeing the scene of his crime. Any good explanation for this odd behavior?"

    not one witness ever said oswald was seen racing to the bus or to the cab that again is completely untrue and unfactual .oswald is seen by 3 people on the bus mary bledsoe (who says oswald is wearing a shirt torn at the elbow with buttons missing ,this is clearly how the shirt apppeared after the scuffle in the theatre which wouldnt happen for another hour ) roy jones and bus driver mcwatters both say oswald wore a jacket so how can bledsoe see oswalds shirt torn at the elbow ? . oswald did say he got on a bus and then got off (there is no law against that ) as it was bogged down in traffic going no where , cab driver willlaim whalley also contradicts bledose and the commission as he to says oswald was wearing a faded blue jacket (thats 3 witnesses saying oswald wore a jacket and one witness who said he wore a shirt ) who do the commision believe 3 people who are consistent no they believe bledsoe (who was clairevoyant it seems in seeing oswalds shirt ripped and tornwhen it wouldnt be ripped and torn for another hour ) why because she said she knew him previously and that he had murder in his eyes ,no other witness described oswald as she did (but the commission showed their obvious bias and that they were only interested in evidence that might show oswald to be guilty ) it would be the only time the commison acted in such a manner .

    8/ "Can anyone explain why Oswald would have asked the cab driver to drive him four blocks PAST his residence on North Beckley street instead of simply dropping him off in front of his house? Is there a logical explanation for Oswald to pay the extra money to the cab driver and then walk nearly a half-mile BACK to the same address the cab driver just drove past?"

    it is strange that he drove past his rooming house and i dont know why he would have done that ,the money is not an issue after all we are only talking about a few extra cents the total cab far i believe was 98 cents . by the money he had is rising when you add the $120 dollars he left behind with the $12 dollars in his pocket to the bus and cab fare he spent ,where does a man on his wage get that kind of money ? that equaits to a little under $1000 dollars today ,and it wasnt the only time he had money beyond his known means .

    9/"Why would Oswald change all of his clothes and pick up his loaded revolver in between arriving home and leaving for the movie theater? The clothing he changed into were not nicer nor more shabby than what he wore to work, and there is no reason to believe they were dirty or unkempt and the reason for him changing clothing and picking up his revolver seems to only make sense when one realizes that he was guilty of committing a crime and obviously wanted to change his appearance and have his revolver on him in the event police stopped him. Is there a logical alternate explanation supported by either common sense or logic? On the day President Reagan was shot (March 30, 1981) I left work early to watch the event unfold on television, but I didn't race home change my clothes, pick up my revolver, and take off on foot roaming the streets of Livonia, Michigan. Why did an innocent Oswald do exactly this?"

    i have to assume as he was at work his clothes were dirty and perhaps his shirt was sweaty ,so he changed his shirt and his britches and placed them in the drawer (its not unreasonable or unusuall for a person to change out of their work clothes ) i see nothing out of the ordinary in a man doing that .on the day reagan was shot i stayed at work and came home afterwards had a shower and changed in to some fresh clothes so i guess all that shows is people think and do things differently but that doesnt make them all killers .

    10/" Why would Oswald sneak into the Texas Theater without paying the 75-cent admission cost--especially when one realizes that Oswald had over $12 on him at the time? If Oswald was innocently entering the theater to watch a movie, why not buy a ticket like everyone else? Of course if Oswald is fleeing police and panicking then his behavior is perfectly understandable. Is there a logical alternate explanation for this blatantly illegal act?"

    did oswald sneak in without paying ? did he go in a little after 1.00 pm or did he go in about 1.35 as seen by brewer ? ,brewer and julia postal say different things regarding oswald entering the theatre in their warren commision testimony .after all he had paid for the bus and the cab so why would he now not pay to enter the theatre ? .assuming oswald is fleeing the police and looking for a darkened place to hide why draw attention to himself by not paying ? ,why then would oswald draw even further attention to himself by moving around the theatre and sitting next to all most all the patons ? .who was the second man who was taken out of the rear door while oswald was being taken out the front door ? ,could the second man have been the man who brewer saw ? .

    11/ "Why would Oswald stand up in the theater, produce his revolver, and attempt to murder Dallas police officer Nick McDonald during some routine questioning. Wouldn't an innocent Oswald naturally assume that the police were there to question him about sneaking into the theater without paying? Is it logical to conclude that Oswald would risk the death penalty in Texas over a 75 cent movie ticket? And while we are on the topic, what did Oswald mean when he stood and yelled out, "Well it's all over now!" WHAT was "all over now"? Was Oswald referring to the movie? Was he referring to his weekend? Was he referring to his movie-filled afternoon break? Or was he referring to his flight from police?
    Any innocent explanations for this behavior?"

    there is no certainty about what oswald said at that second the officer was not sure he thought oswald might have said "this is it " no witness said oswald tried to murder a cop in fact the only witness who saw a gun in a hand said the person holding the gun had a short sleeve oswald wore a long sleeve shirt . clearly oswald had a gun on him when arrested (which he admitted) we must remember that this was dallas texas in the 1960s and so someone carrying a gun was a lot more common place and it was legal to own them ,after all jack ruby just happened to be strolling by the police station on sunday morning with a gun in his pocket so oswald clearly wasnt the only person walking around dallas with a gun in their pocket .

    12/ "Why wouldn't Oswald admit to owning a rifle? If Oswald was innocent of any involvement AND if no bullets had been matched to Oswald's rifle yet AND if Oswald hadn't brought his rifle to work that morning wouldn't an innocent Oswald have no good reason to deny owning a rifle? They were perfectly legal to own in Dallas and Oswald would naturally assume that his rifle was still in the garage at Ruth Paine's home, wouldn't he? Why would Oswald repeatedly lie about owning a rifle if it wasn't used in the assassination? How would his rifle, safely wrapped up in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage possibly link him to a crime he didn't commit? His repeated denials of ownership only make sense when one realizes that Oswald was guilty and he knew that admitting his ownership of the murder weapon would point guilt in HIS direction.

    Or IS there an innocent explanation for his repeated denials of rifle ownership?"

    why in the world would oswald say he owned a rifle if he didnt ? thats ridiculous . to say oswald repeatedly lied about the rifle you have to prove he ordered/recieved /picked up a rifle and that hasnt been done (it also has to be expalined if he did indeed order a rifle how the rifle he ordered is not the one he recieves ),it also has to be proven that the rifle in the backyard photos is the same rifle thats in the national archives and clearly there are differences in those rifles (see the pictures of both rifles i posted in an earlier post ) to say oswald had no good reason to deny he owned the rifle is hogwash he denied he owned it simply because he didnt own it .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    'Hey Lee someone just shot the president'

    'Damn............. I think I will go home, change my clothes, kill a cop, act suspiciously and then sneak into a movie theatre armed with a handgun'.

    Sometimes the most easiest solution is the true one. Oswald fired 3 shots from the book depository and then made his getaway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    'Hey Lee someone just shot the president'

    'Damn............. I think I will go home, change my clothes, kill a cop, act suspiciously and then sneak into a movie theatre armed with a handgun'.

    Sometimes the most easiest solution is the true one. Oswald fired 3 shots from the book depository and then made his getaway.


    Or Oswald was a patsy. Part of conspiracy set up to kill Kennedy.
    Why Oswald as a Patsy - just read Fergus's excellent posts in this forum.
    Oswald history as a marine accounts for an interest in guns if nothing else.
    He was clearly caught up with David Ferrie and had to links to government officials long after his army days. I don't know what happened Kennedy like everyone else - but I certainly do not for one minute buy the lone assassin theory and in fact it is far from the simplest explanation given the incredible amount of other variables that wouldn't add up if he was; again I refer you to Fergus's excellent posts here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Or Oswald was a patsy. Part of conspiracy set up to kill Kennedy.
    Why Oswald as a Patsy - just read Fergus's excellent posts in this forum.
    Oswald history as a marine accounts for an interest in guns if nothing else.
    He was clearly caught up with David Ferrie and had to links to government officials long after his army days. I don't know what happened Kennedy like everyone else - but I certainly do not for one minute buy the lone assassin theory and in fact it is far from the simplest explanation given the incredible amount of other variables that wouldn't add up if he was; again I refer you to Fergus's excellent posts here.

    Oswald acted alone on the day but it doesn't mean other forces were involved in helping him do it. I refer you to this excellent site that convinced me ( I believed in a conspiracy for over 20 years ),
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    'Hey Lee someone just shot the president'

    'Damn............. I think I will go home, change my clothes, kill a cop, act suspiciously and then sneak into a movie theatre armed with a handgun'.

    Sometimes the most easiest solution is the true one. Oswald fired 3 shots from the book depository and then made his getaway.

    i appreciate everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter if that opinion may be right or wrong ,you posted "twelve things involving Oswald's behavior that make him appear VERY guilty" yes im sure there were things that made him appear guilty .there have been many people freed after many years in prison (who probably appeared very guilty at the time ) some of which i named in my last post that have later been shown to be innocent .

    there was a man in the uk (his name alludes me now ) he spent 20 plus years in jail for raping and murdering a young woman ,dna showed him to be completely innocent and he was freed .

    there is a lot more to oswald than we know ,he wasnt a crazy lone nut anything but and the same goes for jack ruby.

    i recognised the rhetoric in the post but wasnt quite sure who was the original author my thinking was dave von pien or dave rietzes but i see its from a certain mr mcadams .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    People say it was a conspiracy but most don't back up these claims. Let's get one thing straight it was definitely not the mob. The driver or the motorcycle cop behind the limo didn't shoot Kennedy.

    So what about the shooters on the Grassy Knoll?
    Well it's reported that loads of people ran straight for it after hearing shots from there. Not true, a minute after the final shot a motorcycle cop ran up there to talk to a colleague and the people presumed he was after an assassin so followed him up there. There was no shooter seen by anyone including a railroad worker who was on a bridge near the place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    BTW JFK is still one of my favorite films, a true masterpiece.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    People say it was a conspiracy but most don't back up these claims. Let's get one thing straight it was definitely not the mob. The driver or the motorcycle cop behind the limo didn't shoot Kennedy.

    So what about the shooters on the Grassy Knoll?
    Well it's reported that loads of people ran straight for it after hearing shots from there. Not true, a minute after the final shot a motorcycle cop ran up there to talk to a colleague and the people presumed he was after an assassin so followed him up there. There was no shooter seen by anyone including a railroad worker who was on a bridge near the place.

    firstly i made no mention of the mob or the driver or any motorcycle cops shooting anyone or firing any shots,i think your trying to use that old tactic that people like mcadams and von pien use so often of implying that a person like myself is a kook (to use their word ) who thinks just about everyone was shooting at jfk and every single cop and agency was in on the conspiracy ,you will not find any such comments in my posts .

    i dont like to speculate i try to stick to the evidence and the testimony but if there is anything on this thread i posted that you or mr mcadams feels is not factual or in error you can feel free to point it out (and show where it is in error ) and i will be happy to retract it and i will appolagize for my error .

    you rather over simplified what happened on or around the knoll area ,your correct no witness claimed to have seen a man with a rifle on the knoll fire a shot at jfk but thats not where the story ends . how many witnesses claimed a shot came from that area ? who was the man on the knoll who was falsely claiming he was a secret service agent ? how many of the witnesses who said they believed a shot came from the the knoll area were policemen ? what did bowers see on the knoll that led him to say "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there." ? .

    there was a rush of people up on to the knoll but it wasnt immediate ,it could have been anywhere from 30 seconds after the last shot or a minute ,joe smith was the first up there (he encountered the fake ss agent ) and a second officer ran to the over pass bridge in to the area where the knoll and bridge join .

    you say a motorcycle officer ran up to the knoll to speak to a colleague who is this officer and who was the colleague he needed to speak to ,can you clarify that please .


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i believe i posted this before but ill post it again .

    Who is John McAdams?

    Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
    Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive?
    He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert... or Crackpot? Here is what was discovered...





    THE OFFICIAL MCADAMS FAQ <H4><H5>Frequently Asked Quuestions regarding John Mcadams / aka Paul Nolan
    By Jim Hargrove <H5>Back To The mcadams FAQ MAIN Page <H5>This FAQ info seems to have prematurely disappeared from DejaNews, but after considerable searching on my old hard drive, here, by popular demand, is the "Official John MacAdams FAQ," first posted on Usenet way back in 1995 by a wonderful Englishman named Bill MacDowall. Bill made "John Locke" (an earlier and even meaner version of "Amythest") stop smearing people on this newsgroup forever by using well-paid lawyers, who for once served a reasonably worthy cause. <H5><H5>This FAQ exists to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about John McAdams. <H5><H5>This FAQ will be posted regularly to forewarn new users of the dangers of becoming another McAdams victim. <H5><H5>

    <H5><H5>1. Who is John McAdams? John McAdams is a professor of political science employed in the Jesuit Marquette University. <H5><H5>
    <H5>2. Is John McAdams hell-bent on destroying the (alt.conspiracy.jfk) newsgroup? Sadly yes. His own words appended below summarize his intentions better than I could.
    From jmcadams@primenet.com Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
    Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
    Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
    From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
    Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700

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

    .John

    <H5>
    <H5>This recent post by McAdams should be viewed in terms of the Charter he submitted as part of the process of forming the moderated JFK group:

    CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY

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

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

    <H5>
    <H5>3. Is McAdams connected to the CIA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <H5>
    <H5>CIA infiltrating as Teachers ?

    Search for "Marquette University & the CIA" on any search engine a see what comes up... Here's a small sample of what I found

    CIA Sends Agents To Schools -- To Teach ... Floyd L. Paseman, who ran the CIA's East Asian operations and is now on a two-year teaching stint at Marquette University in Milwaukee, draws similar plaudits ...

    www.commondreams.org/headlines/041800-02.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

    CIA Officer in Residence Program ... according to Carlos D. Davis, deputy director of the CIA's ... of Southern California,the University of Maryland, New Mexico State University, Marquette ... www.cia-on-campus.org/foia/oir.html - Similar pages

    Center for Studies of Intelligence: Educational Outreach ... Since the program started in 1985, CIA has ... University of South Carolina, University of Oregon, University of Kentucky, Texas A&M, Marquette ... www.cia.gov/csi/officer.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

    dci_annual_report_99_22

    ... American University, US Naval Academy, US Naval War College, Ohio State University, Marquette University ? New Information Services Governance Process: CIA?s ...

    www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fy99intellrpt/ dci_annual_report_99_22.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.cia.gov ]

    Marquette University - Chris Sloane

    ... For more on the trebuchet, visit http://www.marquette ... Future plans: PhD program in Physics at the University ... working in industry or government — maybe the CIA. ...

    www.marquette.edu/as/featured_profiles/sloane.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.marquette.edu ]

    <H5>
    <H5>4. Has McAdams any track record in covert-type activity?

    It seems he has!

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

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

    <H5>
    <H5>5. Has McAdams accused other group users of pedophilia and drug abuse?

    He most certainly has!

    In 1997 McAdams openly accused one Stuart Lyster of having served time in prison for child abuse and accused Dr Gary Aguilar of being a drug addict.

    In the light of McAdams behavior in the group and his other activities such as at the Copa Conference, Stuart Lyster asked McAdams explain his motives in using this group and in return posted the following offensive reply:

    From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)

    Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

    Subject: Re: A cornered rat turns vicious

    Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:04:53 GMT

    Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

    In article < 405_9509091355@miratel.uniserve.com, Stuart.Lyster@miratel.uniserve.com (Stuart Lyster) writes:

    And .John refuses to discuss how he uses this newsgroup for profit. So, .John, are you ready to discuss your *REAL* use of this newsgroup and why you are here, and....

    Stuart, you've first got to address charges that you are a pedophile who has served time in jail for molesting young children. I'm going to keep after you on this until you respond.

    .John

    This reply earned McAdams coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinal newspaper:

    By Tom Vanden Brook of the Journal Sentinel staff

    _____________________________________

    A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults across the Internet - including accusations of drug use and pedophilia - has been chastised by university officials, has annoyed people across the country, and has sparked a small, intense debate on etiquette in cyberspace.

    John McAdams, a political science professor who teaches a course on the Kennedy assassination and has created a home page on the World Wide Web devoted to the topic, admitted to using blue prose in computer correspondence.

    But he defended himself by saying he was responding in kind to people he says are viciously critical of his views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. "The Internet used to be a reasonable place to discuss the Kennedy assassination," McAdams said. "Now, it's a complete 'flamefest'."

    "Flaming," in Internet circles, refers to diatribes aimed at those with differing viewpoints. McAdams is a vocal opponent of academics and others who ascribe to various conspiracy theories concerning the assassination.

    Last fall, participants in an assassination discussion group complained to the Roman Catholic university about McAdams' profane references to them on computer bulletin boards. Gary Aguilar, a San Francisco surgeon, said he contacted MU after McAdams asked him to respond to charges that he had used drugs. Aguilar vehemently denies using drugs.

    "He's extremely mean-spirited," Aguilar said. "What academic purpose can be served by calling people these names? I find it peculiar in the extreme that a professor at Marquette University, a Catholic institution, would do this."

    In response to these criticisms McAdams said:

    "I refuse to be driven off the Internet by abuse or attacks," McAdams said. "If I called somebody a bimbo, it's in reaction. I refuse to be bound by any notion of political correctness."

    Of course McAdams didn't call anyone a "bimbo" which is hardly a description calculated to fuel anger. What he did do is make allegations of child abuse and drug taking which is quite different.

    McAdams has made repeated claims that he did not accuse Stuart Lyster of child abuse, merely asked him to address allegations.... readers will recognize semantics when they encounter them.

    Subsequently, McAdams claimed Stuart Lyster had apologized to him and was not making an issue out of the pedophilia slurs.

    To date, despite repeated requests, McAdams has been unable to post this alleged apology. McAdams protestations of not actually having called Stuart Lyster a pedophile fails to square with an article written by Heather Anichini in Marquette University's own newspaper:

    In condemning Vanden Brook’s ‘unfair’ assessment of him, McAdams wrote that his school paper, the Marquette Tribune, had produced a very fair story. In that story, written by Heather Anichini and printed on 10/17/95, McAdams claimed he had only called someone a pedophile in response to that correspondent’s accusing me (McAdams) of using the group to write a book....

    McAdams explained his actions in the Tribune saying, I was attempting to show the ridiculousness of such claims. ONE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENT WITHOUT FOUNDATION. (emphasis added).

    The man later wrote and apologized (as noted above, no proof of this alleged apology has ever been offered by McAdams...perhaps he doesn't know how to fake email)

    So McAdams, in order to illuminate the inadvisability making charges without having a foundation, made himself the unfounded, and decidedly more mean-spirited, charge of pedophilia!

    The purpose of this FAQ is to address the McAdams problem facing this group and provide some insight for new users to the group of what is actually behind the flame wars being carried out by McAdams and a few of his associates.

    <H5>
    <H5>Van:Robert Harris (reharris1@yahoo.com)
    Discussies:alt.conspiracy.jfk
    Datum:2003-09-30 12:32:52 PST
    Just to set the record straight:

    McAdams did indeed, make comments that were intended to imply that Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor.

    His statements about destroying this newsgroup, as well as those about "pedophillia", were very obviously, sarcastic and not meant to be taken seriously.

    As for a CIA affiliation, I would bet the ranch on it, although he is probably not an employee.

    But none of those things are what is important here, or even comes close to defining what makes him the despicable slug that he is.

    McAdams' real crime is that he is a professional propagandist, who has positioned his website to become *THE* primary source of information on the internet, about the JFK assassination.

    As you probably know, that site is the greatest collection of lies and disinformation that has ever appeared in this case. McAdams has publicly stated that he will permit nothing to appear there that challenges his LN theory, or corrects factual errors in his or his lackey's "articles".

    And he does all of that, knowing full well that JFK was the victim of multiple assassins.

    Robert Harris

    <H5>
    <H5>Van:Michael T. Griffith (mikegriffith1@cs.com)
    Onderwerp:Re: McADAMS TRIES TO CENSOR TRUTH AGAIN
    Discussies:alt.conspiracy.jfk
    Datum:2001-01-15 13:46:14 PST

    I have a little story to tell about McAdams' censorship. Last year I was engaged in a dialogue. My opponent repeatedly resorted to name-calling and personal insults. Finally, three or four replies later, I made one comment about my opponent that called his integrity into question. Incredibly, McAdams sent me an e-mail saying he would not post my reply unless I deleted the comment. In response, I noted to McAdams that he had allowed my opponent to make several far more egregious attacks on me. McAdams said nothing but merely repeated his position that he wouldn't post my reply unless I deleted the offending statement. Until then, I had dismissed reports of McAdams' censorship as overblown. Now I know better.

    MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
    Visit my Real Issues Home Page, where you'll find web pages on the LDS Church, creation vs. evloution, American politics, and the JFK assassination:
    http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id35.htm
    <H5>
    <H5>Van:Martin Shackelford (mshack@concentric.net)
    Onderwerp:John McAdams: A Few Tidbits for his "fans" here
    Discussies:alt.conspiracy.jfk
    Datum:2003-10-09 06:30:10 PST

    Internet issues:

    VILE TACTICS: During a JFK discussion, implied that one of his critics might be a child molester, and that another might be involved with drugs. Totally unrelated to the discussions, but a way of distracting attention from the issues.
    SEARCH HOGGING: His website is designed to pop up first and often in search engine inquiries about JFK. One website review service described McAdams as the Matt Drudge of the JFK assassination.

    PSEUDONYM: Attended 1995 COPA conference in Dallas as computer store owner Paul Nolan, and was interviewed by City Paper under that alias.

    DOUBTFUL: Marquette University Associate Professor; PhD. Harvard University His official Marquette syllabus for his JFK course includes a link to his Judyth Baker attack page--the only name in that group linked to his website. I wonder if Marquette realizes they are "sponsoring" this attack.

    DEATH PENALTY: Most pro death penalty websites include a McAdams quote. He managed to convince USA Today (1998) that he was an "unlikely defender" of the death penalty, though he was a propagandist for executions. He admits that blacks are more likely to be executed, but noting that blacks make up nearly half of all murder victims, he argues that eliminating the death penalty would be assign less value to black murder victims, "a subtle kind of racism." In other words, you are a racist if you don't support a death penalty that executes blacks disproportionately--in fact he argues for MORE executions of blacks. What a guy!! He admits that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, then turns around and argues that it deters murders (same way he argues JFK issues). His "cost-benefit" argument is that the more murderers we execute, the more victims we spare. He happily informed ABC News that executions were becoming more popular. Comments like this led to a Catholic group, JusticeSeekers, to ask whether McAdams shouldn't resign from Marquette University, a Catholic institution, as a majority of Catholics opposed the death penalty.

    DUBIOUS "RESEARCH":JFK researcher Stewart Galanor has exposed McAdams' manipulation data in his analysis of Dealey Plaza witnesses:
    http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

    POLITICS: On Wisconson public radio discussions involving a liberal and a conservative, McAdams was one of the frequently tapped conservatives. In 1991, he received an award from the Dirksen Center. He is on the Board of Advisors of the Heartland Institute--but is not listed under ANY of the Institute's areas of expertise, unlike most Advisors. He has been cited as an opponent of campaign finance reform: http://www.wisinfo.com/heraldtimes/news/archive/local_6105053.shtml Wrote a briefing paper against campaign finance reform for the conservative Cato Institute.



    Original Message
    From: Nathan Howland
    To: info@JFKmurdersolved.com
    Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:13 PM
    Subject: John McAdams


    Hi there,

    I wish I had seen some of your information about McAdams before going into 'his' Assassination Newsgroup.

    I find this all quite an irony, as John's aims is to actually assassinate anything that draws a reasonably intelligent comment or questioning mind toward the mass of irregular and tampered with evidence reported by the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission's report. I suggest everyone shold keep a copy of this vital work in your toilets should have the emergency of running out toilet paper!

    I had only joined the newsgroup for a few days, and have been quietly researching the events on that fateful day in Dealy Plaza for about 15 years. however, it took only 48 hours of questioning 'against the grain' of the Lee Oswald official line, for me to be set upon by John's abusive, and patronising lackies. He is msart enough not to do his own dirty work for fear of exposing himself.

    In response, I defended my corner (without lowering myself to using abuse) by merely pointing out that the kind kindergarten behaviour being exhibited was not only very suprising from so-called adults, but was counterproductive to open investigative debate, especially given serious subject matter at hand. Also, if my humble theories were wrong (which is fine by me!), I requested that they please discuss show how any mistakes had been made in my research, as I was more than happy to keep an open mind about everything. I believe this to be true investigative debate. I believed it to be a mature arena for educated and inspiring analitical conversation ! A reasonable retort you might think, right??

    Not in the slightest! To my 'reasonable' response I was sent an email by McAdams stating that my reply had been censored and deleted, and that its (and I quote) "Rhetoric was too tough!" To me this comment only appeared to be a euphemism for "I am John McAdams, and quite often talk out of my backside!" A Professor of Politics, and so-called open mind in full view. He should know full well that we have a democratic right to free speech and comment. I wasn't using foul language or attacking anyone......unlike his little slave-hands. This was another direct seige on this fundamental right, for which he showed absolutely no remorse whatsoever!! Even when, later, it was brought to his attention there not a hint of regret. That in itself is deeply disturbing behaviour by someoneof his standing reputation. At this moment, I stood back, and looked in more depth at the newsgroup. I then realised this was a blatant and common manipulation of open, truthful, investigation and discussion that he not only support, but actively encouraged. Worryingly, there was a long history of this type of behaviour by McAdams and his 'helpers'. The tactics being used are very much akin to the bullying, rude, offensive, and exhaustive grinding tactics, often seen used by members of the head freaks of the Scientology fraternity.

    John McAdams seems on a single-minded mission to completely gloss over the truth in the labyrinth of lies, avoidance, intimidation, foul play, and obstruction waged by the government for decades in the aftermath of the assassination of 35th President of the United States. I find it a complete disgrace! It is almost as if, in his role as teacher, he is carrying out some other agenda to at least ensure the truth is obscured and fudged from the new generations of younbg sparkling bright minds, who might carry on the torch of questioning this miscreant plot. He does this, manipulatively dictatorial in his position as Head Moderator to this group, standing with his 'surrogate bible', the Warren Commission Report, as he silences those voices and opinions he does not want heard any longer.

    A man of his educated position should be shamed of his actions in this way. And there's me thinking we in a Democracy!?

    Thank you for listening to me....and keep up the good work exposing this dictatorial idiot and his Munchkins!

    In gratitude for all your efforts

    Nathan Howland <H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5>

    </H4>


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    firstly i made no mention of the mob or the driver or any motorcycle cops shooting anyone or firing any shots,

    I never said you did. I didn't quote any of your posts and used the term 'people' so it wasn't aimed at you.

    i dont like to speculate i try to stick to the evidence and the testimony


    So do i.

    how many witnesses claimed a shot came from that area ?


    According to Harold Feldman http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
    51 witnesses heard the shots coming from west of the depository. This claim is also made by Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) in the movie JFK. Unfortunately, Feldman doesn't list the 51 supposed Grassy Knoll witnesses, and his assessment of the witnesses he does list is wildly at variance with their actual testimony in many cases.

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations found 20 witnesses for the Knoll and 46 for the Depository ( Volume 2, p. 122. ).


    who was the man on the knoll who was falsely claiming he was a secret service agent ?


    This was a claim made by Officer Joe Marshall Smith and he was convinced it was a Secret Service agent. The agent was supposed to be there to help the shooter/shooters escape. According to assassination literature and testimony it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza until later in the afternoon of November 22, 1963. Surprisingly, not only were there no Secret Service agents assigned to or stationed behind the grassy knoll area, but there were no FBI or other federal agents, or Dallas Police Officers stationed there either. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that perhaps they were there to help the assassins escape. The fact remains no one knows who the secret service agent was.


    how many of the witnesses who said they believed a shot came from the the knoll area were policemen ?

    Don't know.

    what did bowers see on the knoll that led him to say "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there." ? .


    Bowers made that claim in the book 'Rush to Judgement' by Mark Lane. In his original testimony to the Warren Commission he made no such remarks,

    Mr. BALL. When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?

    Mr. BOWERS. I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

    Mr. BALL. You couldn't describe it?

    Mr. BOWERS. Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened . . .

    Bowers also said he only heard 3 shots. Bowers did not associate any such shot with the knoll area; he could only guess that the shots he heard came from "up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass". Furthermore, at least one, or possibly both of the men Bowers describes were still behind the fence when the first policeman arrived there, almost immediately after the shots ended. (This was Dallas police officer Robert Weldon "Bobby" Hargis.)




    you say a motorcycle officer ran up to the knoll to speak to a colleague who is this officer and who was the colleague he needed to speak to ,can you clarify that please .


    The motorcycle cop was Clyde Haygood who went to confer with a policeman (don't know his name) on a railbridge. Haygood was a block away when he heard the first shot so he had no clue where the shots came from and was probably trying to figure out what was happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    as can be seen by bowers testimony he was cut off (more than once ) some thing we see quite a bit in the warren commission testimonies as well as discussions going off the record . bowers told lane what he would have said in his testimony had he not been cut off .

    when bowers tried to explain about the sequence of shots he heard which were bang bangbang meaning one shot then a gap and then 2 shots all most on top of each other (as other witnesses said ) he was informed he was not an expert ,why does one need to be an expert to say i heard 3 shots and they were spaced this like this .

    the reason i asked the questions regarding the knoll was in reply to your comment
    "So what about the shooters on the Grassy Knoll?
    Well it's reported that loads of people ran straight for it after hearing shots from there. Not true, a minute after the final shot a motorcycle cop ran up there to talk to a colleague and the people presumed he was after an assassin so followed him up there. There was no shooter seen by anyone including a railroad worker who was on a bridge near the place. "

    your very simplistic comment in no way reflects the true nature of all that went on in and around the knoll . the testimonies of all the witnesses (who were called to both the commission and hsca ) can be read by anyone and they can see where people said the shots came from in addition to that you have statments and affidavits from people who were never called . also people who stood near elm and houston thought atleast 1 shot came from the knoll area .

    "who was the man on the knoll who was falsely claiming he was a secret service agent ?

    This was a claim made by Officer Joe Marshall Smith and he was convinced it was a Secret Service agent. The agent was supposed to be there to help the shooter/shooters escape. According to assassination literature and testimony it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza until later in the afternoon of November 22, 1963. Surprisingly, not only were there no Secret Service agents assigned to or stationed behind the grassy knoll area, but there were no FBI or other federal agents, or Dallas Police Officers stationed there either. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that perhaps they were there to help the assassins escape. The fact remains no one knows who the secret service agent was."

    joe smith was convinced the man was a ss agent because the man showed him identification , the man wore a sports jacket and had dirty finger nails smith said "he looked like an auto mechanic " ,if this man was genuine im sure the fbi etc would have been very quick in parading him for all to see to put the matter to rest (this has never happened ) the man seen by smith was either a shooter or was there to distract the police to enable a second man to make his escape . the second man is probably the man seen by j c price .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    My simplistic comment about the Grassy Knoll was just a short answer mainly about the Motorcycle cop. The truth is the Grassy Knoll is the keystone to the whole conspiracy. There is so many theories of what happened in that vicinity it can be exhausting reading up on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i read many many testimonies /articles etc and yes its hard work and it takes many many hours (and your never really finished because there is always more to read ) but if one doesnt read these they can never have a full understanding of exactly what did occur on the knoll or any other significant place such as the tsbd .

    for example the finding of the rifle (or rifles as the case me be)on the 6th floor ,for instance officialy the shells were found at 1.17 and the rifle about 5 to 6 minutes later but it seems as with all aspects of this case there is more to be learned .

    the man who found the snipers nest was luke mooney he found it according to his testimony at 1.00 or maybe a little earlier ,mooney said


    "At that time, some news reporter, or press, I don't know who he was--he was calming up with a camera. Of course he wasn't taking any pictures. He was just looking, too, I assume. So I went back down ahead of Officers Vickery and Webster. They come in behind me down to the sixth floor.
    I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from."

    "Mr. Ball.
    About what time of day was this?Mr. Mooney.Well, it was approaching 1 o'clock. It could have been 1 o'clock.Mr. Ball.Did you look at your watch?Mr. Mooney.No, sir; I didn't. I should have, but I didn't look at my watch at the time to see what time it was."
    now he didnt look at his watch but he had a rough idea of the time the shells were found which would turn out to be quite accurate and unwittingly corroberated by will fritz .mooney upon finding the shells at about 1.00pm sticks his head out the window (the snipers nest window )

    "So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
    Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.

    so mooney saw will fritz who had just arrived at the tsbd having come from parklands hospital ,what time does will fritz say he arrived at the tsbd ?

    will fritz was at the trade mart when the news that jfk had been shot filtered through

    "Mr. Ball.
    I see. Now, what time did you, what time was it that you heard the President had been shot?Mr. Fritz.I show that he was shot at 12:35, and one of the Secret Service men who was assigned the same location where we were assigned, got a little call on his, evidently got a call on his little transistor radio and Chief Stevenson, who was also assigned to some part of the building there, came to me and told me that the President had been hit at the underpass, and asked me to go to the hospital and see what I could do.Mr. Ball.You say you show he was shot at 12:35?Mr. Fritz.Yes, sir.Mr. Ball.You mean that is the time you heard about it?Mr. Fritz.Well, we heard about it immediately after that, and we arrived and we checked----"
    fritz left the trade mart and went to parklands and from there to the tsbd on elm street

    "Mr. Ball.When you heard of this what did you do?Mr. Fritz.Immediately left, and I told the two officers with me, Mr. Sims and Boyd that we would run to our police car that was parked nearby, listened to radio call to see whether it was a hoax or whether it was the truth. It was only 10 minutes' time for the President's arrival, we didn't want to leave unless this was a genuine call, and a true call.
    When we got to the radio, of course, we began to get other news. We went to Parkland Hospital as we had been instructed, and as we drove up in front of the hospital, we I suppose intercepted the chief, Chief Curry, between the curb and the hospital, and I told him we had had a call to the hospital but I felt we were going to the wrong place, we should go to the scene of the crime and he said, "Well, go ahead," so I don't think our car ever quit rolling but we went right to the scene of the crime."
    so what time did fritz arrive at the tsbd ?

    "Mr. Ball.Did you go directly to a building?Mr. Fritz.Directly to the Texas School Book Depository Building.Mr. Ball.What time did you arrive there?Mr. Fritz.Well, sir; we arrived there---we arrived at the hospital at 12:45, if you want that time,and at the scene of the offense at 12:58.Mr. Ball.12:58; the Texas School Book Depository Building.Mr. Fritz.Yes.Mr. Ball.Were there any officers there at the time?Mr. Fritz.Yes, sir.Mr. Ball.In the front?Mr. Fritz.Several officers; yes, sir."
    so fritz arrives outside the tsbd at 12.58 ,he wastes little time going in to the the tsbd because the belief was that the shooter may still be in there . so mooney finds the shells at about the same time as fritz arrives (which fritz said was 12.58) but lets say it was 1.00pm ,now the rifle was found about 5 minutes maybe 6 after the shells were found and that puts the finding of the rifle at 1.05 to 1.06 .

    now we can tie two pieces of info together ,roger craig said the rifle was found at about 1.06 (but he said it was a mauser ) and he said that an unknown officer had come up and told them that an officer had been shot in oakcliff (this can only be jd tippit ) ,so not only does fritz testimony unwittingly corroberate mooney it goes a long way to corroberating things that roger craig said .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭markc1184


    Sorry if this is in the wrong section or if its already been asked, but if Oswald had been convicted what would have been the likely sentence he would have received? Did Texas have capitol punishment in the 60's?


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i believe it would have been the electric chair ,as an officer (i forget his name ) upon hearing oswald was dead went to ruby (told him the news ) and the officer said well jack it looks like gonna be the electrick chair for you .so if ruby would have been getting the chair it would have been the same for oswald .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    i believe it would have been the electric chair ,as an officer (i forget his name ) upon hearing oswald was dead went to ruby (told him the news ) and the officer said well jack it looks like gonna be the electrick chair for you .so if ruby would have been getting the chair it would have been the same for oswald .

    And funnily enough Ruby thought he would be a national hero for killing Oswald, serve a couple of years and open a top restaurant after being released.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i dont believe for a second he shot oswald to be a national hero and he certainly didnt do it for anything as noble as to spare jackie having to testify at a trial that was thought up by his lawyer .

    lets not forget ruby was seen on film and photograph in the dallas police station on a few occasions over the weekend (he even corrected a stament made in relation to the fair play for cuba commitee ) in areas that should have been secure .he seemed to effortlessly gain entrance to the police station as he would do again on sunday morning when he would kill oswald .

    the warren commission decided he came down the ramp even tho they say the evidence is inconclussive largely based on vaughan passing 3 lie detector tests and pierce and co saying they did not see ruby on the ramp .

    from the warren commission
    "Although the sum of this evidence tends to support Ruby's claim that he entered by the Main Street ramp, there is other evidence not fully consistent with Ruby's story. Patrolman Vaughn stated that he checked the credentials of all unknown persons seeking' to enter the basement, and his testimony was supported by several persons. Vaughn denied that the emergence of Lieutenant Pierce's car from the building distracted him long enough to allow Ruby to enter the ramp unnoticed, and neither he nor any of the three officers in Lieutenant Pierce's car saw Ruby enter"

    "(a) Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department shortly after 11:17 a.m. and killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 a.m.

    (b) Although the evidence on Ruby's means of entry is not conclusive, the weight of the evidence indicates that he walked down the ramp leading from Main Street to the basement of the police department. "

    from the hsca
    “The evidence available indicates that Jack Ruby did not come down the Main Street Ramp when Lieutenant Pierce exited.”

    "The HSCA also said: “The possibility that Ruby entered via the alley, went down the stairs and through the basement door is logistically attractive. Through his knowledge of Dallas Police Headquarters, Ruby may have been aware of the alley, the stairs and the door, and this mode of entry would have been much less conspicuous than the others. It would have enabled Ruby to get into position without having to pass many persons, since the route went through a fairly empty parking lot in the basement. Further, most, if not all, people were probably focusing on the area nearest to the jail office and the ramps, awaiting Oswald’s appearance.

    This path would also have taken Ruby across the garage area through a railing at a point near the bottom of the Main Street ramp. With respect to timing, Ruby could have entered the basement via this route in the four minutes that elapsed between his visit to Western Union and the shooting. On June 26, 1964, an FBI agent walked through the route (including going through the railing near the bottom of the ramp) in response to a request from the Warren Commission; he found it required 189 steps and 2 minutes and 25 seconds.”

    researcher gary mack claims ruby being in dealley plaza sunday morning was happenstance (just pure luck ) he only was in the area to wire money to little lyn but for having to wire the money he wouldnt have been there .but were the other times he gained entrance to the police station happenstance also ? ,and we shouldnt forget that ruby was armed (as he shot oswald) so he unexpectedly had to go into the plaza to western union to wire some money and decided to bring his gun (in case he got mugged or some thing ,well there was alot of crime about you know presidents and governors being shot ,a guy cant be to carefull ) and then he just happened to be strolling past the police station ramp (gun in pocket )sees a commotion wonders whats happening (as if he didnt know after all he was practicly living there the previous to days )and says oh yea that crazy oswald kid is being moved today think ill take a look (and slopes on down the ramp ) joins the crowd and has a look see . he then spots oswald and decides you know what id like to kill that SOB to prevent poor jackie having to appear at a trial (wait a second i just happened to have a revolver on me must be my lucky day ) and the rest is history . or atlaest thats the fiction the warren commission would have us believe ,but the truth is a little different .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    Jack Ruby concluded his business at the western union at 11.17am and shot Oswald 4 minutes later at 11.21am. If there was a conspiracy then why would he be wiring money and acting in a normal everyday fashion?

    Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour’s further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald’s last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV.

    Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day).


    FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK, "RECLAIMING HISTORY":


    "Are we just left with conjecture to reach a conclusion on the issue of how Ruby entered the police basement? No, there is evidence, common sense, and Ruby's knowledge of events that prove he entered through the Main Street ramp. ....

    "The virtual proof that Ruby came down the Main Street ramp is that within a half hour of his arrest, and right after he was taken from the basement to the jail on the fifth floor (which was long BEFORE [DPD officers] Pierce, Putnam, Vaughn, and Maxey had been interviewed and given their statements), Ruby told Dallas police detective Barnard Clardy and other detectives that he had entered through the Main Street ramp and had seen Pierce driving out of the ramp.

    "How could Ruby possibly have known this if he hadn't, in fact, been at the entrance to the Main Street ramp? I mean, Pierce himself didn't even receive instructions to drive out of the Main Street ramp until around 11:15 a.m., just six minutes before Ruby shot Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 108-109 of "Reclaiming History"


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    the first thing is that ruby probably knew more of the dallas police officers on a personal level than curry or fritz and its reasonable to say he could easily get information regarding oswald .

    you (or the athor of the piece you posted bugliosi ) are aware of the testimony of vaughan (who passed not 1 but 3 lie detector tests ) as well as pierce and the other officers in the car that they did not see ruby on the ramp (and this is not a hug ramp its just about wide enough for a car to pass up or down .


    also our friend bugliosi would be aware of both the warren commision and hsca findings

    "from the warren commission
    "Although the sum of this evidence tends to support Ruby's claim that he entered by the Main Street ramp, there is other evidence not fully consistent with Ruby's story. Patrolman Vaughn stated that he checked the credentials of all unknown persons seeking' to enter the basement, and his testimony was supported by several persons. Vaughn denied that the emergence of Lieutenant Pierce's car from the building distracted him long enough to allow Ruby to enter the ramp unnoticed, and neither he nor any of the three officers in Lieutenant Pierce's car saw Ruby enter"

    "(a) Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department shortly after 11:17 a.m. and killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 a.m.

    (b) Although the evidence on Ruby's means of entry is not conclusive, the weight of the evidence indicates that he walked down the ramp leading from Main Street to the basement of the police department. "

    (not conclusive )

    from the hsca
    “The evidence available indicates that Jack Ruby did not come down the Main Street Ramp when Lieutenant Pierce exited.”

    "The HSCA also said: “The possibility that Ruby entered via the alley, went down the stairs and through the basement door is logistically attractive. Through his knowledge of Dallas Police Headquarters, Ruby may have been aware of the alley, the stairs and the door, and this mode of entry would have been much less conspicuous than the others. It would have enabled Ruby to get into position without having to pass many persons, since the route went through a fairly empty parking lot in the basement. Further, most, if not all, people were probably focusing on the area nearest to the jail office and the ramps, awaiting Oswald’s appearance.

    This path would also have taken Ruby across the garage area through a railing at a point near the bottom of the Main Street ramp. With respect to timing, Ruby could have entered the basement via this route in the four minutes that elapsed between his visit to Western Union and the shooting. On June 26, 1964, an FBI agent walked through the route (including going through the railing near the bottom of the ramp) in response to a request from the Warren Commission; he found it required 189 steps and 2 minutes and 25 seconds.”

    “The evidence available indicates that Jack Ruby did not come down the Main Street Ramp when Lieutenant Pierce exited.”

    also ruby claimed he gained entrance as the car containing pierce was leaving via the ramp and not when the truck was trying and failed to gain entrance via the ramp .


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    Vincent Bugliosi's Misnamed Reclaiming History
    by David R. Wrone, 28 Sep 2007




    In the forty four years of sustained discussion about the official findings of the federal government’s investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy no author can equal the failure Vincent Bugliosi has achieved in his misnamed Reclaiming History.

    Invented facts & relations.

    A characteristic of his narrative is the frequent use of hypothetical instances as a substitute for a lack of evidence or absence of documentary support for a statement. These he typically expresses with such phrases as “probably” or “must have” and similar wordage. In other words, when no or scant evidence exists to sustain a point he is writing about, he makes it up. For example, in one three page section of the end notes where he discusses the Officer J. D. Tippit murder he uses these made up substitutes for the lack of evidence thirty seven times. In the book as a whole one can only estimate the total number of inventions to be incredibly large. This is not what the civilization we are part of calls history, but is a class of fiction presented as non-fiction known as Munchausen’s work. In the appendix the thirty seven instances are set down.

    Mythic reconstruction substituted for evidence.

    Closely akin to Vincent Bugliosi’s inventions employed as evidence is his use of imaginary or mythic reconstructions to carry a point when he hasn’t any facts to sustain them. These he plugs into his narrative and employs for all the world as if they were expressions of the November 22nd reality. In this he parrots the Warren Commission’s lavish and pious use of reconstructions as a solution for the lack of evidence in its rush to frame Oswald’s guilt so a doubting America and a skeptical world would believe it. While we could cite many of these stand-in devices to illustrate this common Bugliosian anti-historical trait, perhaps his invention of the path Oswald took from his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue to the scene of the Officer J. D. Tippit murder near 10th Street & Patton Avenue, will suffice.

    Like the Warren Commission did before him Bugliosi claims Oswald killed Tippit. To do this Oswald officially—following the Warren Report’s scenario--had to move from his room on Beckley three minutes after 1:00 p.m. to the scene of the murder by 1:15 p.m. (radioed in at 1:16 p.m.) the time the Commission set for the shooting. [1] Responsible critics long ago convincingly proved the feat to have been impossible for him to have performed. [2] Bugliosi overcomes this severe and ultimately exculpatory time constraint in three ways. First he gratuitously starts Oswald to the Tippit scene several minutes before 1:00 p.m. to gain minutes for his thesis. Next, he adds minutes to the end of the walk where he speciously asserts Oswald arrived later than 1:10 p.m., the time a witness swore he had seen Tippit dead on the pavement. [3] He then couples the gerrymandered time with an invented pathway. He declares he himself fast walked this route taken by Oswald south of the rooming house to the murder scene, a route he knows by intuition alone. He got there in 11’ 23” minutes, plenty of time for Oswald following this asserted trail and supposed time to have shot Tippit at 1:15 p.m. before a citizen sounded an alert on the police radio at 1:16 p.m. [4]

    But when we examine the path Bugliosi took, upon which his assertions of Oswald as murderer of the police officer must rest, we discover it is all a type of blue sky matter, a theory not history. He invented the route. There is not a scrap of genuine evidence, a fact, a scintilla of data, to mark any route to Tippit. Just as with the Commission’s map of Oswald’s alleged path taken, it is a pining wish. [5]



    Sketch of Earlene Robert's home, prepared by SA Roger C. Warner, with Robert's position indicated. Click on image to enlarge.

    The only evidence of what Oswald did after leaving the rooming house is based on his housekeeper’s report. At 1:04 p.m., she stated and attested, he stood at the bus stop just across the front sidewalk and just past the drive way on the right hand side of the house where he could catch a bus going north. [6] The official record avoids presenting any information on the schedule and route the northbound bus took while Bugliosi also renders them invisible entities just as he did on Oswald’s wait at the stop. But after going north the bus route turned and ultimately passed the Texas Theatre. Furbishing the logic of the bus stop wait, we recall that Oswald told Captain Will Fritz of the DPD during interrogation that after he left his room he went to the movies. [7] Certainly the north bus component ought to have been included in the evidentiary base and evaluated; a proper inquiry into the assassination of President Kennedy would demand it. [8]

    The Master Theorist.

    Not content with mere invention and rampant speculation, Bugliosi pommels all dissenters from the official doctrine that Oswald killed JFK and passionately tars them with the slander brush of ‘conspiracy theorists.’ But contrary to his assertion all dissenters are not theorists, such as the exemplary Howard Roffman and the indubitable Harold Weisberg, as well as many others. But bizarrely Bugliosi is a theorist himself, the castle-master indeed. The hundreds of his invented facts and dozens of mythic reconstructions are simple theories, pure instances of the pernicious breed, including the major theory suffusing his book that asserts Oswald killed JFK.

    Fact corruption.

    He so often corrupts facts that it makes his text unacceptable to any person of candor seeking understanding of this national tragedy. Several representative instances of this characteristic are presented in the appendix.

    Calculated omission of important facts.

    A close brother to distortion of some key evidentiary elements is Bugliosi’s often omission of important relations defining a fact. The result is the presentation of the false nature of the fact under discussion with the end of furthering his theory of Oswald’s guilt. Perhaps the best short example from the great many, yea scores, for us is his treatment of cab driver William Whaley’s identification of Oswald in the police line up. Without context, so important for a reader to judge the fact properly, Bugliosi briefly states that Whaley at 2:15 p.m. on the afternoon of November 23rd picked out Oswald. Whaley, of course, is the cab driver who right after the assassination had driven Oswald to N. Beckley Street and had further attested in various testimonies and affidavits that he had dropped him off at three different addresses! [9]

    We are not told about the bizarre nature of this police line up. [10] Four men stood in the line up, three well dressed police officials, detectives--W. E. Perry (7H232-235) and Richard Clark (7H235-239), and jail clerk Don Ables (7H239-243)--and then the rudely dressed Oswald. Each was asked to give their name and occupation. The first three gave fake answers. Oswald though gave his true name and said he worked in the Depository, which by then the world knew about, and his picture was in the papers Whaley read that morning.

    Oswald stood in the line up bawling out the policemen for framing him, cussing and ranting he was being set up; he had bruises and a black eye. “He talked,” the cab driver recalled, “that they were doing him an injustice by putting him out there dressed different than these other men he was out there with.” [11] As Whaley added: “. . . you wouldn’t have had to have known who it was to have picked him out by the way he acted.” Moreover, Whaley swore there were six men in the line up when there were four. [12] Then, incredibly, he testified that he had signed the finished affidavit before he went down to view the line up. To top it all off he did not identify Oswald as his passenger but chose no. 3, whereas Oswald was no. 2 with a large number above his head. [13] The Commission fiddled the answer and put false information about it in its Report. [14] The entire incident drives to the heart of the sickeningly incompetent and corrupt police techniques and dedicated false focus that Bugliosi consistently and often piously masks with his simulated erudition. As it is he provides a distorted picture of Whaley’s credibility.

    Conclusion.

    With Bugliosi we have a man with great talent and mighty work ethic whose reputation now stands tarnished. But he is not alone. In addition to the author’s weaknesses, though, we have a wide range of institutions that failed us. We have the refusal of a publisher to publish responsible volumes on this crucial subject. To spew this mind skewing mammoth of disinformation out into the public mind has no saving grace. But we also have a press and a media avoidance of the evidentiary base; we have the refusal of clueless historians to address the reality; and, we have the spurning of the subject by the intelligentsia, its rejection by Congress, and its disdain by lawyers. In short this volume must be seen as part of the breakdown of American society in a time of crisis.

    read more here http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    The funny thing about Jack Ruby is that he believed there was a conspiracy to kill the president, but he played no part in it.

    Jack Ruby's deathbed interview clears up a lot of things.
    http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydeathbed.html

    As for your claim that Ruby just happened to be carrying a weapon, well he was arrested on May 1st 1954 for carrying a concealed weapon.

    But you believe the mob in collusion with the DPD arranged to have a mentally unstable strip club owner sneak into the underground garage to kill Oswald? But before he would carry out the hit he would wire some money so one of his strippers could pay the rent. And the only reason he went to the Western Union that day was because said stripper rang him. Surely if he was going to kill Oswald that day he would have been snuck in around 10am when Oswald was initially set to be transported. And why would he have been contracted to kill Oswald? To silence him? Oswald had 48 hours to spill the beans on the 'conspiracy' but didn't because there was no conspiracy. Plus anyone who knew Ruby said the man couldn't keep a secret for 5 minutes without telling someone.
    "Jack Ruby would be the last one that I could ever trust to do anything," says Ruby's rabbi, Hillel Silverman.

    Why did the DPD not just shoot Oswald in the movie theatre after he drew his gun?

    Wouldn't Ruby killing Oswald just mean that now someone has to kill Ruby?

    Why kill Oswald on National Television opening up all these conspiracy theories?

    Why hire a joke of a man like Ruby to silence Oswald?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i assume you dave reitzes and bugliosi have medical documentation that proves ruby was mentally unstable .

    "Oswald had 48 hours to spill the beans on the 'conspiracy' but didn't because there was no conspiracy."

    i beg to differ and i have shown in my posts all through this thread evidence of conspiracy , the hsca not only concluded that ruby didnt walk down the ramp but also acknowledged conspiracy . with respect all we have of oswalds many hours of interrogation are a few notes from hosty/fritz /bookhout and because of that no one will ever know what oswald said or if he "spilled the beans" as you say ,the man maintained his innocence throughout (and asked for help ) and said he was just a patsy .

    "Why did the DPD not just shoot Oswald in the movie theatre after he drew his gun?"
    presumably because he was heard by all the theatre patrons shouting "i am not resisting arrest "

    the warren commission had diffictulty putting ruby on the ramp (inconclusive is the word they used )and the hsca said that he must have entered from the lane ,if ruby was just lucky and sneaked in through the lane in time to catch oswald why would he not say that to the police ? why lie and say he came down the ramp . i see you have resorted to labeling ruby as a mentally unstable joke of a man (as he has to be to fit your scenario of events ) when any reasearcher knows that there is so much more to ruby ,and had the commmison/hsca bothered to look they would have found that out but of course if they investigated it that would mean they would have to acknowledge it .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    He was a joke of a man to pick as the guy to silence Oswald, an old emotionally unstable man who could be happy one minute and then go berserk in the next one. That link I posted of Ruby nearly dead from cancer and giving his version of events on the day he shot Oswald is pretty convincing IMO and I feel genuinely sad for the man. His links to members of the mob is all Conspiracy Theorists need to link him to a conspiracy. Do all assassins stop off to wire money to strippers on their way to a hit? Was his dog an accomplice? All you have to go on is his entry into the underground garage and his mob connections. I ask again why was Jack Ruby not in the garage or even the vicinity of it at 10am when Oswald was supposed to be transported to the county jail?

    Here is a piece from crime magazine that is interesting,
    http://www.crimemagazine.com/why-jack-ruby-killed-lee-harvey-oswald
    Conspiracy advocates raise all kinds of similar conspiratorial questions about Ruby in their attempts to prove he was part of a plot. As David Belin first noted (Full Disclosure, 1988), nearly every conspiracy theorist ignores the testimony of Ruby's rabbi, Hillel Silverman. Rabbi Silverman had visited Ruby in prison frequently. Rabbi Silverman is convinced Ruby was not part of a conspiracy. According to Silverman, at his first meeting with Ruby on the day after the shooting of Oswald, Ruby told him that, ''Had I intended to kill him (at a press conference on the Friday evening), I could have pulled my trigger on the spot, because the gun was in my pocket.'' And the truth of Ruby's explanation is confirmed by Lonnie Hudkins, a newspaper reporter, in an interview with BBC ''Timewatch'' researchers. ''I asked him if he was packing a pistol at that midnight press conference,'' Hudkins said, ''and he said 'Yes'. I asked him, 'Why didn't you plug him then?' and he said 'I was frightened of hitting one of you guys.' ''
    These circumstances are vital to an understanding of Ruby's actions because the time to shoot Oswald would have been the Friday night press conference. It was pure coincidence that Ruby had an opportunity to kill Oswald on the Sunday morning.


    Yes Oswald said 'I'm not resisting arrest' but he was armed with a handgun and assaulted a police office by punching him in the face, which would have given the crooked DPD an opportunity to eliminate him. Why was he armed if he was so innocent?


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    do you plan on offering any evidence /cites and research to back your claims /beliefs ?. or are you just happy to quote bugliosi and rietzes to the death as well as crime magazines . im quoting and citing the actual evidence/warren commission /hsca etc so if your not willing to do the same all your doing is time wasting .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    Can you not answer this simple question?

    I ask again why was Jack Ruby not in the garage or even the vicinity of it at 10am when Oswald was supposed to be transported to the county jail?

    http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/jack_ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭fergus o brien


    i believe i did answer that question in an earlier post
    "the first thing is that ruby probably knew more of the dallas police officers on a personal level than curry or fritz and its reasonable to say he could easily get information regarding oswald " ,ruby was stalking oswald as can be seen by the photographs and film of ruby in side the police station .

    " Billy Grammer, a Dallas Police dispatcher, says he received a telephone threat against Oswald's life the night before Oswald's murder. He said the tipster did not identify himself, but did greet the officer by name. The caller advised police to change their plans for Oswald's transfer to another jail the next day. The voice on the other end was urgent—asserting, "We are going to kill him!"

    Only after Jack Ruby murdered Oswald did Grammer realize he had been talking to a local striptease club operator he knew well. "It had to be Ruby," he later disclosed. Grammer says that phone call convinced him the Oswald slaying was "not spontaneous," but rather a "planned event."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEjT7XCN_R0
    (billy grammer "rubys murder of oswald was premeditated")

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWSuPr_Ghk&feature=related
    ("it was as if his life depended on getting oswald")

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U77Rj46ncY8&feature=related
    (jack ruby "the world will never know the true facts")


  • Advertisement
Advertisement