jfk taken out by mob??? Contains Graphic Images

The Recliner · 02-01-2011 5:52pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

@killerking

Sorry, mate, stevejazzx will just tell you to read more. He has read "a couple of books" in his own words, so he knows MUCH more than you or I.

He knows everything, but he can't tell you more than that, or he'd have to kill you.

I have asked you before to dial back the attitude, please do so, infractions and bans are the next step if it continues

Your constant accusations of being called stupid and your baiting of other posters is tiresome and unnecessary

Most discussion in this forum is carried out in a less confrontational manner and works fine

PM me if you wish to discuss this, don't reply to this post on thread

fergus o brien · 02-01-2011 6:01pm

well the hsca was as flawed as the warren commission ,people always say no one standing near the knoll area saw a gunman (true to a degree) but then they were all looking in the opposite direction towards jfk as his limo turned from houston on to elm and drove towards them. to say no one claimed to hear a shot from the knoll area is fiction as some 50 plus witness claimed a shot came from that area. there are no pictures of oswald in the window either only one witness (howard brennan ) who claims it was oswald and a few other witnesses who claimed to have seen two men in the window .

im not sure what you mean by physical evidence (do you mean the wounds on both jfk and connally ) the warren commissions own experts said (regarding the bullet fragments found in connallys wrist and leg) that they couldnt concieve of where they came from (having examined ce399 the magic pristine condition bullet) .

i would respectfully disagree that a conspiracy to kill jfk hinges on the dictabelt recording ,there is an abundance of evidence other than that.

Dragonblaster · 02-01-2011 6:36pm

Apologies to all, particularly Steve, for sounding off. I was rude, and I'm sorry for that.

However, I still see no evidence to believe that anyone other than Oswald was involved in JFK's murder, and I do not find the argument convincing that the sociopolitical situation of the time makes it more likely than not that the CIA did it.

In a court of law, the defendent's history is regarded as having no bearing on the actual crime for which he is being tried. The evidence should stand on its own feet.

I know the CIA discussed killing people like Castro, who was regarded as an enemy of the United States, but they didn't do it. I know of no private or public person in the US that they have been proved to have murdered.

If I saw evidence - verifiable evidence - that they ever had, I might feel different.

Dragonblaster · 02-01-2011 7:01pm

I also find unconvincing the argument that the lack of evidence for a conspiracy proves that there is a cover-up.

I believe that is the standard fallacy known as "begging the question", where the premise pre-supposes the proposition.

First one must prove the conspiracy exists, and only then can one go on to show that this must have been covered up.

stevejazzx · 02-01-2011 7:10pm

killerking wrote: »

The central plank of the HSCA conclusion of the high probability of a second shooter is the motorcycle radio dictabelt which conspiracy wackos claim has 4 noises that they believe to be gunfire.

It has since been proven that the recording was not made at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza and the noises could not be gunshots.

I'm sorry it hasn't been proven.
The first attempt was in early eighties when the FBI questioned the aduio evidence.
A full breakdown is listed here
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
It is believed now that the tape may be a recording of a recording hence the phrase first heard by drummer Steve Barber can be explained two ways.

None of the witnesses on the grassy knoll saw any rifleman hiding behind the fence nor heard any shots. No rifle was recovered, no spent hulls were recovered etc. No photographs or films show any evidence whatsoever of a gunman behind the fence.

I'm baffled by that. Nearly all the initial witnesses claimed shots from the Grassy Knoll.

stevejazzx · 02-01-2011 7:18pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

well the hsca was as flawed as the warren commission ,people always say no one standing near the knoll area saw a gunman (true to a degree) but then they were all looking in the opposite direction towards jfk as his limo turned from houston on to elm and drove towards them. to say no one claimed to hear a shot from the knoll area is fiction as some 50 plus witness claimed a shot came from that area. there are no pictures of oswald in the window either only one witness (howard brennan ) who claims it was oswald and a few other witnesses who claimed to have seen two men in the window .

im not sure what you mean by physical evidence (do you mean the wounds on both jfk and connally ) the warren commissions own experts said (regarding the bullet fragments found in connallys wrist and leg) that they couldnt concieve of where they came from (having examined ce399 the magic pristine condition bullet) .

i would respectfully disagree that a conspiracy to kill jfk hinges on the dictabelt recording ,there is an abundance of evidence other than that.

Thye HSCA is actually far better than the Warren Commission report.
The WCR is full of nonsense, as Garrison says in his playboy interview theres a section on Jack Rubys mothers teeth as well as a detailed report of Oswalds pubic hairs. Nuts.

And I agree the dictabelt evidence is not the best of the available evidence for a conspiracy.

Dragonblaster · 02-01-2011 7:23pm

Thye HSCA is actually far better than the Warren Commission report.

Why is that, Steve?

It concludes that the CIA and the mob were NOT in on it. I cannot see how that supports your contention of CIA involvement.

killerking · 02-01-2011 7:26pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm sorry it hasn't been proven.
The first attempt was in early eighties when the FBI questioned the aduio evidence.
A full breakdown is listed here
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
It is believed now that the tape may be a recording of a recording hence the phrase first heard by drummer Steve Barber can be explained two ways

.

A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the gunshot sounds did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.

I'm baffled by that. Nearly all the initial witnesses claimed shots from the Grassy Knoll.

Your baffled because you probably haven't read their witness testimony.
The witnesses on the knoll didn't see or hear any gunman.
Zapruder came on TV shortly after the shooting and never mentioned any second gunman or any fourth shot.
Don't you think he would have said something?
If I was standing a few feet from a person firing a gun I would know about it.
The grassy knoll theory is ludicrous nonsense.
As if an assassin is going to stand behind a fence in a car lot with people standing only feet away and shoot at the President and NOT get caught????:rolleyes:

Dragonblaster · 02-01-2011 7:30pm

Not to mention that Abraham Zapruder must have had at least two bullets whistling straight past his head (all but the third shot) from any Grassy Knoll gunman. It's a credit to his composure that he kept the camera so steady.

fergus o brien · 02-01-2011 8:53pm

"The witnesses on the knoll didn't see or hear any gunman."

there were a lot of other people standing in the knoll area and further away (besides zapruder )who said a shot came from the picket fence area however the warren commission didnt call many of them .as i said in an earlier post the people standing on elm street initially were looking east (up elm street) and not towards the knoll area so they wouldnt have seen a man with a rifle on the knoll. buts lets assume they did see a man on the knoll in the minutes just before the shooting they probably would have thought what the people thought on seeing a man in the window (they simply thought he was a secret service agent) and as we know a man on the knoll did claim to be secret service and pulled out a badge .

1) Harold Feldman, Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll (1965)

The human ear does not provide the best evidence in a murder case. But its perceptions are evidence not to be despised or dismissed, especially when the case is the murder of a President and more than half of all recorded witnesses agree. What follows is the result of a survey of the 121 witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy whose statements are registered in the twenty-six volumes appended to the Warren Report.[1] On the question of where the shots that killed the President came from, 38 could give no clear opinion and 32 thought they came from the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBDB). Fifty-one held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Commission, failing to change the memories of witnesses, dismisses them with a wave of the hand. "No credible evidence," says its Report, "suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No credible evidence! It is clear how the Commission reached this absurd conclusion. Once it was committed to the thesis that there could be only one assassin and no accomplices, it readily accepted the clues pointing to Lee Oswald in the TSBDB. Now that the assassin and his place were identified, it became "incredible" that any other assassin or any other source of shots could exist. Ergo, any evidence that there was another assassin and another shot source is not "credible."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In what other murder case would the testimony of 51 sworn and many other unheard witnesses be dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible evidence"?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We submit, on the contrary, that the earwitness evidence is quite credible. Taken together with the ballistic and medical evidence analyzed by Mr. Salandria, it is not only credible; it is convincing. There was at least one other assassin firing at President Kennedy from the vicinity of the grassy knoll.[/FONT]

killerking · 02-01-2011 9:10pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

"The witnesses on the knoll didn't see or hear any gunman."

there were a lot of other people standing in the knoll area and further away (besides zapruder )who said a shot came from the picket fence area however the warren commission didnt call many of them .as i said in an earlier post the people standing on elm street initially were looking east (up elm street) and not towards the knoll area so they wouldnt have seen a man with a rifle on the knoll. buts lets assume they did see a man on the knoll in the minutes just before the shooting they probably would have thought what the people thought on seeing a man in the window (they simply thought he was a secret service agent) and as we know a man on the knoll did claim to be secret service and pulled out a badge .

If someone was only feet away from a person shooting a rifle they would have turned and seen him when they heard the loud bang.
I might be wrong but guns make loud noises when they are fired.
If you were in Dealey Plaza and you saw a guy with a rifle behind the picket fence wouldn't you go over and ask him 'What are you doing with that gun mister?' If an assassin was trying to kill the President surely he would pick a better hiding place if he didn't want to be caught be the police.
One of Lyndon Johnson's Secret Service bodyguards was on the knoll just after the shooting after he jumped out of the open door of the car and was left behind as the motorcade tore off toward Parkland Hospital.
He later commandered a vehicle and rejoined his detail
Another agent returned to Dealey Plaza and joined cops who were combing the area for clues and interviewing witnesses.
The physical evidence shows that JFK was shot once in the back of the neck and once in the head from the direction of the TSBD with a rifle fired by LHO.
That was the conclusion of the Warren Commission, Rockefeller and Ramsey investigations and the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
4 separate investigations all came to the same conclusions.

fergus o brien · 02-01-2011 10:10pm

i already addresed the issue of the secret service agent in the knoll area in a much earlier post ,i would only say take a look at joe smiths description of the person claiming to be a ss agent ,it certainly isnt lem johns.

(officer joe smiths description of the man he saw)
He looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic's hands. And afterwards it didn't ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn't snap on it. (Summers 50)

and sorrels (who i assume is the other agent you mention) didnt return to dealey plaza untill 12.50 atleast.

Former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry stated in 1977 that the man encountered by Officer Smith "must have been bogus." Said Curry,

"I think he must have been bogus--certainly the suspicion would point to the man as being involved, some way or other, in the shooting since he was in an area immediately adjacent to where the shots were--and the fact that he had a badge that purported him to be Secret Service would make it seem all the more suspicious." (Summers 51)

neither zapruder or marilyn sitzman were looking at the fence area when the shot was fired ,on hearing the loud bang (the head shot) both zapruder and sitzman jumped off the concrete plinth and made their way to the pergola for cover .

as i said the man seen in the tsbd window was considered by on lookers to be a secret service agent so i would have no doubt that had a man been seen on the knoll the same conclusion would have been reached ,however the fake secret service man was likely in place to ensure no one gained access to the knoll area ,all he had to do was flash a badge.

conclussions were reached by the warren commision by ignoring evidence (including their own experts testimony)and by being selective with witnesses called .

there is ample testimony in the warren commission volumes that states the magic bullet could not have left all the fragments taken from connallys wrist and left thigh (a significant piece being left in his left leg untill the day he died)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PVffA2EGg&list=PL70279C2AEC0F0E73&index=34&playnext=1
also it should be noted that bullet that was found on the stretcher at parklands was not the bullet that was in connallys left leg (how can i say this ) have a look at this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY&feature=player_embedded

killerking · 02-01-2011 11:21pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

i already addresed the issue of the secret service agent in the knoll area in a much earlier post ,i would only say take a look at joe smiths description of the person claiming to be a ss agent ,it certainly isnt lem johns.

(officer joe smiths description of the man he saw)
He looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic's hands. And afterwards it didn't ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn't snap on it. (Summers 50)

and sorrels (who i assume is the other agent you mention) didnt return to dealey plaza untill 12.50 atleast.

Former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry stated in 1977 that the man encountered by Officer Smith "must have been bogus." Said Curry,

"I think he must have been bogus--certainly the suspicion would point to the man as being involved, some way or other, in the shooting since he was in an area immediately adjacent to where the shots were--and the fact that he had a badge that purported him to be Secret Service would make it seem all the more suspicious." (Summers 51)

All we know for sure is that the man flashed some kind of ID, he might have been a member of the press corps, he might have been a plainclothes cop or some other government employee - there were lots of government offices close by.There is no reason at all to assume he was a conspirator in the assassination.
You are really jumping to wild conclusions here.

neither zapruder or marilyn sitzman were looking at the fence area when the shot was fired ,on hearing the loud bang (the head shot) both zapruder and sitzman jumped off the concrete plinth and made their way to the pergola for cover .

Absolutely nonsense. Zapruder continued to pan his camera and filmed the limousine disappear into the triple underpass. If he heard a shot from behind the fence which was literally within in feet of him we would have have seen the shooter on film.
Do you expect anyone to believe that an assassin is going to shoot at the President with witnesses almost standing over him?
That is just laughable.
Was he invisible for something?

as i said the man seen in the tsbd window was considered by on lookers to be a secret service agent so i would have no doubt that had a man been seen on the knoll the same conclusion would have been reached ,however the fake secret service man was likely in place to ensure no one gained access to the knoll area ,all he had to do was flash a badge.

The difference is that a man was seen in the 6th floor window with a rifle shooting at the motorcade by Howard Brennan.
There was no man seen behind the picket fence by anybody.
Oswald was on the 6th floor of the building which is why people did not go into the building and confront him.
If there was a grassy knoll shooter, he would have been seen by witnesses standing only feet away, they would have seen him firing the rifle and they would have intervened.
He certainly would not have had time to pick up any spent shell cases and make good his escape because he would have grabbed right away.
The 'fake secret service agent' did not prevent Smith from entering the car lot. Smith had a look around, found nothing and moved on.
Numerous photos and films if the knoll do not show anybody behind the fence.
Your attempts to place an imaginary shooter behind the picket fence are quite frankly laughable.

conclussions were reached by the warren commision by ignoring evidence (including their own experts testimony)and by being selective with witnesses called

I think it is you who is being selective.

there is ample testimony in the warren commission volumes that states the magic bullet could not have left all the fragments taken from connallys wrist and left thigh (a significant piece being left in his left leg untill the day he died)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PVffA2EGg&list=PL70279C2AEC0F0E73&index=34&playnext=1
also it should be noted that bullet that was found on the stretcher at parklands was not the bullet that was in connallys left leg (how can i say this ) have a look at this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY&feature=player_embedded

The weight of bullet CE399 was reported in the Warren Commission Report as 158.6 grains (10.28 grams). It was found that the weight of a single, unfired bullet ranged from 159.8 to 161.5 grains with an average weight of 160.844 grains. The lead fragments retrieved from Connally's wounds in the wrist (there were no fragments in the chest) weighed about 2 grains (130 milligrams).

You are quite obviously just making up nonsense or repeating nonsense by other conspiracy theorists who haven't done their homework either.

fergus o brien · 03-01-2011 12:16am

the conclussion i mentioned is the concussion of people like jesse curry who was one of the senior men in the case ,so its hardly just wild speculation on my part.

yes zapruder did pan his camera and follow the limo as it passed below the railroad bridge ,but you seem to miss my point in that he didnt and was not looking in the direction of behind the fence at any time as jfk came down elm street and passed his vantage point (in fact he stopped filming just at the corner of the fence so sadly no one was visible on the film) which was only a couple of seconds after the head shot and then jumped down from the concrete plinth and scrambled inside the pergola .yes both zapruder and sitzman were in close proximity to the fence but hardly only a few feet away, so the shooter wasnt standing over him but yes was reasonably close by.

there was a gap of anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute plus before anyone ran to the knoll area to confront the shooter ,a shooter would have had ample time to do one of atleast 4 things ,stroll away ,hide in the boot of a car parked in the knoll or disappear down the nearby drainage shaft or put the rifle into the boot of a car to hide it and simply stand there on the knoll and pull out a ss badge .i didnt say the fake agent stopped joe smith ,but he was there and he had a badge (that is an acknowledged fact) which he flashed which enabled him to simply walk away. sadly the trees and bushes blocked a clear view of anyone standing on the knoll so it was difficult to catch anyone on camera .the shooter in the window wasnt confronted because he was presumed to be a secret service agent not because he was on the sixth floor ,after all he was seen as early as 12.15 by arnold rowland and there were police everywhere so had the man been presumed a killer some one would have told the police between 12.15 and 12.30 but this never happened.

if you look back along this thread you will see warren commision testimony which i posted which shows how the warren commision ignored their own experts testimony i can repost it if you like.
"When FBI hair-and-fiber expert Paul Stombaugh examined CE 142 on November 23, he found that it contained a single, brown, delustered viscose fiber and "several" light-green cotton fibers (R136). The Report does not mention Stombaugh's qualification of the word "several" as indicating only two or three fibers (4H80). It seems that these few fibers matched some composing the blanket in which the rifle was allegedly stored, although Stombaugh could render no opinion as to whether the fibers had in fact come from that blanket (R136-37)."
he also said
"I was also requested . . . to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle....And I couldn't find any such markings."
the warren commisions own ballistics experts said this.

"Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely ... The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?
Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally's thigh. I can't conceive of where they came from this missile.
Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399. Commander HUMES. 399, sir. "

"Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist. "

From Mr. Frazier, FBI firearms expert:

"Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains. "
. . .
"Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.
Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399. Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

click on the link below to see all the above and more
http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm

well ill let the many people who will view this thread decide if ive done my homework or not ,but you are of course entitled to your opinion .but if im repeating nonsense then its the warren commision nonsense.

Dragonblaster · 03-01-2011 2:11pm

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Will you describe, as specifically as you can, what
those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"

DR. CHARLES GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying
from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two
millimeters in diameter. And each fragment is no more than a half
millimeter in thickness. They would represent, in lay terms,
flakes...flakes of metal."

MR. SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in
total?"

DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in
micrograms, which is {a} very small amount of weight. I don't know how
to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you. It is the kind of
weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale; which means that it is
something less than the weight of a postage stamp."

MR. SPECTER -- "For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested
to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of
sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could
not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact,
or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that
that would be consistent with having virtually the entire
6.5-millimeter bullet emerge?"

DR. GREGORY -- "Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by
X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered,
I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total
missile mass without reducing its volume greatly."

The experts disagree. There are experts who are satisfied that the fragments could have come from CE399, just as there are others who are not, so it is only fair to include both sides.

Certainly, the expert testimony on its own may well leave room for doubt, but it is not undeniable evidence of deception.

Do you have anything better? Something that stands out and on its own is enough to convert a Warren Commission believer into a believer in a huge conspiracy involving the US Senate, the police, the intelligence community and the judiciary?

If it's only your personal opinion, fine; I can respect that. But please say so if that's the case.

Augmerson · 03-01-2011 4:28pm

I think the film JFK by Oliver Stone is worth watching to gain a encompassing perspective of all the potential factors and actors in play in the assasination of Kennedy - just beware that there is dramatization in it. Good film though.

My own opinion on the JFK assasination was that it was a conspiracy, just like 9/11. Bush and the upper echelons of the US Gov't were aware of the plans to strike the WTCs. How could they have not of been aware? They have that huge listening station in the UK (Echleon I think it's called, listening in on all the communication traffic in the Northern Hemisphere I heard). They knew it was coming and allowed it to happen because the event gave them a carte blanche for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Likewise, removing Kennedy allowed LBJ to be brought in, who ramped up the US effort in Vietnam (and if I'm not wrong....could have been Nixon) and began bombing Laos and Cambodia too (again, could be wrong President...and the US may not have bombed Cambodia at all). Kennedy may have wanted to end US participation in Vietnam, something which hawkish elements in the US Gov't and Military were probably dead set against.

You look to see who will profit and you find your men.

Exactly who was behind it? A number of actors. Oswald had something to do with it but I think he was a patsy and may have taken part in the shooting but almost certainly did not act alone. The Gov't was definitely complicit.

Dragonblaster · 03-01-2011 5:29pm

I think the film JFK by Oliver Stone is worth watching to gain a encompassing perspective of all the potential factors and actors in play in the assasination of Kennedy - just beware that there is dramatization in it. Good film though.

I watched it. I don't believe it. That's my opinion.

My own opinion on the JFK assasination was that it was a conspiracy,

Noted.

Bush and the upper echelons of the US Gov't were aware of the plans to strike the WTCs. How could they have not of been aware?

What, you think the plotters worked it out on line? That would be idiotic. Don't you think they'd realise that? If they met in a pub or a park, how would the US Gov't know about it? To answer that, they wouldn't.

They have that huge listening station in the UK (Echleon I think it's called, listening in on all the communication traffic in the Northern Hemisphere I heard).

Phone call. "Meet you down the pub tonight, mate?"

Echelon (or whoever, listening on the phone) "GO, GO, GO! WE ARE AT RED! GO! We go them bang to rights!"

There'd be a revolution, my friend, and rightly. Didn't happen.

They knew it was coming and allowed it to happen because the event gave them a carte blanche for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't convince the UN, or you, or me, or all sorts of people to give them "carte blanche", and the US still went there. So did the UK. The act alone does not prove who did it: but for the record, I don't believe it was the CIA.

Why on Earth blow up four (not three) huge and HUGELY EXPENSIVE buildings, four planes, thousands of blameless human beings, risking that some clear-eye person might guess that it had been the murder of American people (and also people from other countries) by the US Goverment?

Why not set a bomb off in an American base in (say) the UK?, killing (say) 50 people? Look up the Tonkin incident, that some people say was another cover-up to bring the US into Vietnam.

It didn't seem to take all that huge loss of life to bring the US to war then. Why three huge buildings in New York and the Pentagon to boot now?

Oh, and if it was a ploy, it wasn't all that convincing anyway. They never found any WOMD anyway. Why not just plant them?

killerking · 03-01-2011 5:54pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

the conclussion i mentioned is the concussion of people like jesse curry who was one of the senior men in the case ,so its hardly just wild speculation on my part.

There is still no reason to believe that there is anything at all sinister about the mystery man whoever he may have been.

yes zapruder did pan his camera and follow the limo as it passed below the railroad bridge ,but you seem to miss my point in that he didnt and was not looking in the direction of behind the fence at any time as jfk came down elm street and passed his vantage point (in fact he stopped filming just at the corner of the fence so sadly no one was visible on the film) which was only a couple of seconds after the head shot and then jumped down from the concrete plinth and scrambled inside the pergola .yes both zapruder and sitzman were in close proximity to the fence but hardly only a few feet away, so the shooter wasnt standing over him but yes was reasonably close by.

Zapruder was standing only feet away from where the supposed second shooter was located. There is no way in hell he could not have seen him and there is no way a shooter would choose such a ridiculous location to fire a rifle with people almost on top of him.
So let's just put this to bed shall we?

there was a gap of anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute plus before anyone ran to the knoll area to confront the shooter ,a shooter would have had ample time to do one of atleast 4 things ,stroll away ,hide in the boot of a car parked in the knoll or disappear down the nearby drainage shaft or put the rifle into the boot of a car to hide it and simply stand there on the knoll and pull out a ss badge .i didnt say the fake agent stopped joe smith ,but he was there and he had a badge (that is an acknowledged fact) which he flashed which enabled him to simply walk away. sadly the trees and bushes blocked a clear view of anyone standing on the knoll so it was difficult to catch anyone on camera .the shooter in the window wasnt confronted because he was presumed to be a secret service agent not because he was on the sixth floor ,after all he was seen as early as 12.15 by arnold rowland and there were police everywhere so had the man been presumed a killer some one would have told the police between 12.15 and 12.30 but this never happened.

You are just speculating with no evidence to back up anything you say.

if you look back along this thread you will see warren commision testimony which i posted which shows how the warren commision ignored their own experts testimony i can repost it if you like.
"When FBI hair-and-fiber expert Paul Stombaugh examined CE 142 on November 23, he found that it contained a single, brown, delustered viscose fiber and "several" light-green cotton fibers (R136). The Report does not mention Stombaugh's qualification of the word "several" as indicating only two or three fibers (4H80). It seems that these few fibers matched some composing the blanket in which the rifle was allegedly stored, although Stombaugh could render no opinion as to whether the fibers had in fact come from that blanket (R136-37)."
he also said
"I was also requested . . . to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle....And I couldn't find any such markings."
the warren commisions own ballistics experts said this.
"Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely ... The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?
Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally's thigh. I can't conceive of where they came from this missile.
Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399. Commander HUMES. 399, sir. "
"Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist. "
From Mr. Frazier, FBI firearms expert:
"Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains. "
. . .
"Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.
Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399. Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

click on the link below to see all the above and more
http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm

well ill let the many people who will view this thread decide if ive done my homework or not ,but you are of course entitled to your opinion .but if im repeating nonsense then its the warren commision nonsense.

If the bag found in the 6th floor 'sniper nest' was not the bag used by Oswald to take the 'curtain rod' package to work then how did it get there? And what happened to the supposed curtain rod package?
The CE399 bullet was matched to Oswald rifle excluding all other weapons so how did it end up on the stretcher at Parkland hospital unless it got there by falling out of Connally's leg wound and unless it was one of the bullets fired during the assassination?

fergus o brien · 03-01-2011 6:01pm

well ill do what you didnt do and thats to post gregorys testimony in its proper context as it appears in the warren commission vollumes.ill leave out the bit at the start as its only about his qualifications but feel free to post it your self.

Testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory)
Mr. Specter.view, Exhibit No. 691, and "B" stands for the lateral view, Exhibit No. 690, of the right wrist and forearm. "A" then demonstrates a comminuted fracture of the wrist with three fragments.Mr. Specter.What do you mean by comminuted?
Dr. GREGORY. Comminuted refers to shattering, to break into more than two pieces, specifically many pieces, and if I may, I can point out there is a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, and there are several smaller fragments lying in the center of these three larger ones.Mr. Specter.How many fragments are there in total, sir, in your opinion?
Dr. GREGORY. I would judge from this view that counting each isolated fragment there are fully seven or eight, and experience has taught that when these things are dismantled directly under direct vision that there very obviously may be more than that.Mr. Specter.Will you continue to describe what that X-ray shows with respect to metallic fragments, if any?
Dr. GREGORY. Three shadows are identified as representing metallic fragments. There are other light shadows in this film which are identified or interpreted as being artifacts.Mr. Specter.What is the basis of distinction between that which is an artifact and that which is a real shadow of the metallic substance?
Dr. GREGORY. A real shadow of metallic substance persist and be seen in other views, other X-ray copies, whereas artifacts which are produced by irregularities either in the film or film carrier will vary from one X-ray to another.Mr. Specter.Is it your view that these other X-ray films led you to believe that those are, in fact, metallic substances?
Dr. GREGORY. As a matter of fact, it is the mate to this very film, the lateral view marked "B", which shows the same three fragments in essentially the same relationship to the various levels of the forearm that leads me to believe that these do, in fact, represent metallic fragments.Mr. Specter.Will you describe as specifically as you can what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?
Dr. GREGORY. I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal.Mr. Specter.What would your estimate be as to their weight in total?
Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that they would be weighed in micrograms which is very small amount of weight. I don't know how to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you.
It is the kind of weighing that requires a microadjustable scale, which means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp.Mr. Specter.Have you now described all the metallic substances which you observed either visually or through the X- rays in the Governor's wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. These are the three metallic substance items which I saw. Now if I may use these to indicate why I view the path as being from dorsal to volar, from the back of the wrist to the palm side, these have been shed on the volar side suggesting that contact with this bone resulted in there being flaked off, as the remainder of the missile emerged from the volar side leaving the small flakes behind.Mr. Specter.Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?
Dr. GREGORY. There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.Mr. Specter.And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY. Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.Mr. Specter.Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion,"
(Testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory)

Mr. Specter.indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?
Dr. GREGORY. Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.Mr. Dulles.Would you show that on your own wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.Mr. Dulles.We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.
Dr. GREGORY. I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.
But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.Mr. Specter.Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.Mr. Specter.Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.Mr. Specter.Before proceeding to the other factors indicating point of entry and point of exit, Dr. Gregory, I call your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 399, which is a bullet and ask you first if you have had an opportunity to examine that earlier today?
Dr. GREGORY. I have.Mr. Specter.What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?
Dr. GREGORY. In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile.
(At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.)
I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it Joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead.
The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not inconsistent with one of the characteristics known for missiles which is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a linear motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion which is a spinning motion having to do with maintaining the integrity of the intial linear direction, but if they strike an object they may be caused to turn in their path and tumble end over, and if they do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the strike time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air upon emergence, tumble into another target backward. That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.Mr. Specter.Is them sufficient metallic substance missing from the back or rear end of that bullet to account for the metallic substance which you have described in the Governor's wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. It is possible but I don't know enough about the structure of bullets or this one in particular, to know what is a normal complement of lead or for this particular missile. It is irregular, but how much it may have lost, g have no idea.Mr. Dulles.Would the nature of the entry wound give you any indication as to whether it entered backward or whether it entered forward?
Dr. GREGORY. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business

"Mr. Specter.What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?
Dr. GREGORY. In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile.
(At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.)
I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it Joined the cartridge carrying the powder"
so other than "a small flake " the loss of metal on this bullet is the deformity at the base of the bullet for analysis purposes. as with other witnessess they used the tactic of getting them to say the words probable or possible but no mention of provable or proven .

one must also consider that the thigh wound had a large fragment left in the wound for the duration of connallys life.

here is a further piece of his testimony.
(Testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory)

Mr. Specter.tissue, fat, and all of the particles of clothing, threads of cloth, which we could identify; and, incidentally, a bit of metal or two.
That wound was subsequently left open; in other words, we did not suture it or sew it together. This is done in deference to potential infection which we know often to be associated with retained organic material such as cloth.
The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged. The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound was then sutured, closed.
After this, the fracture was manipulated into a hopefully respectable position of the fragments, and a cast was applied, and some traction, using rubber bands, was applied to the finger and the thumb in order to better hold the fracture fragments in their reduced or repositioned state.Mr. Specter.Dr. Gregory, could all of the wounds which were inflicted on the Governor, that is. those described by Dr. Shaw. and those which you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?
Dr. GREGORY. I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a single missile under these specifications.Mr. Specter.Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been described here today?
Dr. GREGORY. I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished.Mr. Specter.Why do you say that, sir?
Dr. GREGORY. I think that to pass through the soft tissues of the President would certainly have decelerated the missile to some extent. Having then struck the Governor and shattered a rib, it is further decelerated, yet it has presumably retained sufficient energy to smash a radius.
Moreover, it escaped the forearm to penetrate at least the skin and fascia of the thigh, and I am not persuaded that this is very probable. I would have to yield to possibility. I am sure that those who deal with ballistics can do better for you than I can in this regard.Mr. Specter.What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I think that is a much more plausible possibility or probability.Mr. Specter.How about the likelihood of passing through the President and through the Governor's chest, but missing his wrist and passing into his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. That, too, is plausible, I believe.Mr. Specter.Are there any other circumstances of this event which have been related to you, including the striking of the President's head by a third bullet, which would account in any way, under any possibility, in your view, for the fracture of the right wrist which was apparently caused by a missile?Mr. Gregory.May I refer to this morning's discussions?Mr. Specter.Yes, please do.
Dr. GREGORY. This morning I was shown two additional missiles or portions of missiles which are rather grossly distorted.Mr. Specter.Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the missiles which have heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570.

here are two pieces of the above which are relevent

"Mr. Specter.Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been described here today?
Dr. GREGORY. I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished."(the probability is much diminished)

"Mr. Specter.What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I think that is a much more plausible possibility or probability.Mr. Specter.How about the likelihood of passing through the President and through the Governor's chest, but missing his wrist and passing into his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. That, too, is plausible, I believe."
"How about the likelihood of passing through the President and through the Governor's chest, but missing his wrist and passing into his thigh?"

wait a sec here what happened to the wrist wound ,spector is trying to get gregory to say yes the wounds to both jfk and connally (minus the wrist wound) could be caused by the magic bullet when he already said the probability of that was much diminished.

so the witness you are saying disagrees with the other witnessses is not in fact in total opposition at all is he. in fact his testimony would tend to point to the single bullet theory being wrong and an extra shot being fired .

Dragonblaster · 03-01-2011 6:07pm

so the witness you are saying disagrees with the other witnessses is not in fact in total opposition at all is he. in fact his testimony would tend to point to the single bullet theory being wrong and an extra shot being fired .

ALL the other witnesses? No, I just picked one to show that they didn't agree. That is a fact from the report: if it is wrong, please show how.

I would like to know why the witnesses who said that the fragments were too large to be from that bullet MUST be regarded as better informed from those who said they were not.

DublinWriter · 03-01-2011 6:12pm

I think E Howard Hunt's recent deathbed confession threw a lot of light on this and revealed LBJ to be prime-mover.

I do believe however that the Mob were used in the role of assassinating the alleged assassin. In the very few interviews conducted by Jack Ruby while in prison, he always maintained that LBJ was the root cause of JFK's death.

fergus o brien · 03-01-2011 6:25pm

killerking wrote: »

If the bag found in the 6th floor 'sniper nest' was not the bag used by Oswald to take the 'curtain rod' package to work then how did it get there? And what happened to the supposed curtain rod package?
The CE399 bullet was matched to Oswald rifle excluding all other weapons so how did it end up on the stretcher at Parkland hospital unless it got there by falling out of Connally's leg wound and unless it was one of the bullets fired during the assassination?

the bullet magic bullet didnt fall out of connallys leg .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY&feature=player_embedded
it may however have fallen out of the shallow back wound on jfk during cardiac massage.

i cant say what happened to the package containing the curtain rods seen by both wesley fraizer and his sister linnie mae randall (what happened to the mauser and the mauser bullet found in dealey plaza ?) there was a 7.65 bullet found and destroyed .

killerking · 03-01-2011 6:29pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think E Howard Hunt's recent deathbed confession threw a lot of light on this and revealed LBJ to be prime-mover.

I do believe however that the Mob were used in the role of assassinating the alleged assassin. In the very few interviews conducted by Jack Ruby while in prison, he always maintained that LBJ was the root cause of JFK's death.

The physical evidence shows that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. Are seriously trying to claim that Oswald was hired by LBJ to kill the President? What evidence do you have?

killerking · 03-01-2011 6:32pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

the bullet magic bullet didnt fall out of connallys leg .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY&feature=player_embedded
it may however have fallen out of the shallow back wound on jfk during cardiac massage.

i cant say what happened to the package containing the curtain rods seen by both wesley fraizer and his sister linnie mae randall (what happened to the mauser and the mauser bullet found in dealey plaza ?) there was a 7.65 bullet found and destroyed .

There was no back wound for any bullet to fall out of.

There was no mauser rifle or mauser bullet found in Dealey Plaza and there was no 7.65mm bullet found and destroyed.

You can't say what happened to the curtain rod package because you don't want to admit the 'curtain rod' package was actually a rifle package.

Augmerson · 03-01-2011 7:02pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

What, you think the plotters worked it out on line? That would be idiotic. Don't you think they'd realise that? If they met in a pub or a park, how would the US Gov't know about it? To answer that, they wouldn't.

Phone call. "Meet you down the pub tonight, mate?"

Echelon (or whoever, listening on the phone) "GO, GO, GO! WE ARE AT RED! GO! We go them bang to rights!"

Your fully entitled to your skeptiscm on that one, but the US authorities were aware of an impending event on American soil some months before 9/11. All I'm saying is, with the amount of human and highly sophisticated technological intelligence gathering systems around the globe, they were unable to intercept atleast some communication between the terrorist's who hijacked the planes and the people who were supporting them?

It didn't convince the UN, or you, or me, or all sorts of people to give them "carte blanche", and the US still went there. So did the UK. The act alone does not prove who did it: but for the record, I don't believe it was the CIA.

Why on Earth blow up four (not three) huge and HUGELY EXPENSIVE buildings, four planes, thousands of blameless human beings, risking that some clear-eye person might guess that it had been the murder of American people (and also people from other countries) by the US Goverment?

Why not set a bomb off in an American base in (say) the UK?, killing (say) 50 people? Look up the Tonkin incident, that some people say was another cover-up to bring the US into Vietnam.

It didn't seem to take all that huge loss of life to bring the US to war then. Why three huge buildings in New York and the Pentagon to boot now?

Oh, and if it was a ploy, it wasn't all that convincing anyway. They never found any WOMD anyway. Why not just plant them?

I'm glad you brought up the Tonkin incident, that's a good point. If the US wanted to just invade Iraq and Afghanistan, why not just stage some similiar incident? Well, I'll be brief as I can, but look at the differences between Tonkin and 9/11.

Supposedly North Vietnam attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin whereas terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. The 9/11 attacks not only led to the US invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq (where the premise was on VERY shakey ground) but 9/11 also allowed Bush and the Republicans to push through the Patriot Act, a seriously draconian piece of legislation allowing US authorities to spy on their own citizens.

Without the immensity of death and destruction that occured on 9/11, I doubt the Patriot Act would have been allowed and I seriously doubt the creation of state agencies like Homeland Security would exist today. That would not have been possible with a mere bombing of a US base somewhere (sorry to use the word mere, what I mean by it is a lesser action with regard to the collossal loss of life on 9/11).

deadman walking · 03-01-2011 7:06pm

In my opinion the only way this matter is going to be resolved is to exhume JFK's body and have an independant enquiry by laboratories and agencies outside USA intrests.

This will never happen for two main reasons,JFK was a national hero beloved by millions and none would want his body disturbed,second reason is that if a conspiracy did exist then there would be so much collateral damage done by revealing the truth especially in todays anti-american enviroment that it would be better to keep things hidden.

Whatever else is said we have clear video evidence that there was at least two shooters.You do not have to see the second shooter to know he was there.The head shot on Kennedy was on the right side of his head at a level with a line drawn from his right eye to the back of his head.The motion of the head mid and post impact was back and to the left.If you look at the video and watch it at slow enough speed then you can see Kennedy's head moving back and to the left as it is struck before you see the side of his skull exploding as the bullet exits.This scenario of events is only physically possible if the shooter is in front and to the right of Kennedy as this happens.

Whether bullets went in backwards or magically hung around mid body for milliseconds before exiting does not matter in this case,you cannot get a motion like that in those circumstances or a wound pattern like that except that the shooter is in front and to the right,just not possible.

I am only refering to the head wound and none other.Too many questionable circumstances occur for the other wounds and bullets being found on trolleys etc. The head wound for my two cents shows beyond any reasonable doubt that there were at least two shooters.

Basically Kennedy was trapped in a killbox to maximise likelyhood of death since oswald was not good enough a shot and the rifle was not accurate enough to garauntee success on a moving target using one inexperienced shooter alone.

fergus o brien · 03-01-2011 7:07pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

ALL the other witnesses? No, I just picked one to show that they didn't agree. That is a fact from the report: if it is wrong, please show how.

I would like to know why the witnesses who said that the fragments were too large to be from that bullet MUST be regarded as better informed from those who said they were not.

all i do is show the information/testimony/evidence that is there for all who want to see it , as i did with doctor gregorys testimony. im not a doctor so all i can do is accept that they gave their testimony as truthfull and accurate as they could .and i think anyone looking at his testimony alone would have to cencede that he throws doubt on the single bullet causing all wounds (excluding the head wound ) to both jfk and connally.

Dragonblaster · 03-01-2011 7:20pm

there was a 7.65 bullet found and destroyed .

What? Well that really would blow the whole thing open!

Please, please, please tell me how you know this. I might then believe that is a probem with the single-rifle theory!

Dragonblaster · 03-01-2011 7:23pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

all i do is show the information/testimony/evidence that is there for all who want to see it , as i did with doctor gregorys testimony. im not a doctor so all i can do is accept that they gave their testimony as truthfull and accurate as they could .and i think anyone looking at his testimony alone would have to cencede that he throws doubt on the single bullet causing all wounds (excluding the head wound ) to both jfk and connally.

Doubt, yes. Enough evidence to make me say "What the hell's wrong with this picture?" - no.

Do you have anything better?

killerking · 03-01-2011 7:28pm

Augmerson wrote: »

Your fully entitled to your skeptiscm on that one, but the US authorities were aware of an impending event on American soil some months before 9/11. All I'm saying is, with the amount of human and highly sophisticated technological intelligence gathering systems around the globe, they were unable to intercept atleast some communication between the terrorist's who hijacked the planes and the people who were supporting them?

As far as we know telepathy hasn't been patented. The US military tried killing goats by staring at them and it didn't work.

I'm glad you brought up the Tonkin incident, that's a good point. If the US wanted to just invade Iraq and Afghanistan, why not just stage some similiar incident? Well, I'll be brief as I can, but look at the differences between Tonkin and 9/11.

Supposedly North Vietnam attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin whereas terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. The 9/11 attacks not only led to the US invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq (where the premise was on VERY shakey ground) but 9/11 also allowed Bush and the Republicans to push through the Patriot Act, a seriously draconian piece of legislation allowing US authorities to spy on their own citizens.

Without the immensity of death and destruction that occured on 9/11, I doubt the Patriot Act would have been allowed and I seriously doubt the creation of state agencies like Homeland Security would exist today. That would not have been possible with a mere bombing of a US base somewhere (sorry to use the word mere, what I mean by it is a lesser action with regard to the collossal loss of life on 9/11).

So if Muhammed Atta et al didn't do it who did? Who gave them the order if Osama didn't? Who are these masterminds and how come you don't have any evidence?

jfk taken out by mob??? **Contains Graphic Images**

Comments

jfk taken out by mob??? Contains Graphic Images