A Report Is Submitted

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on March 24th, 2019, 6:14 am 

It was one of the most keenly anticipated reports in modern American history, one that many hoped would provide a definitive answer to so many troubling questions about precisely what had taken place to bring a popular and charismatic president’s term in office to an end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission

The Warren Commission report was delivered on September 24 1964. The Commission had been established by direct order of the new President Lyndon B. Johnson on 29 November 1963, just a week after the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kenendy, who had been shot by a sniper while riding in an open top motorcade during a visit to the city of Dallas in Texas.

The panel members of the Warren Commission under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Earl Warren were given less than a year to produce their 888 page summary report and told to do so at least a month before the pending presidential elections due in November 1964.

Warren himself was reluctant to serve on the Commission because he felt it would erode the constitutional separation of the judicial and executive branches of government. Other commission members also took part reluctantly because they felt that whatever conclusions they came to would ultimately command more controversy than consensus.

Their fears were well founded. Lee Harvey Oswald, the putative gunman, was an utterly toxic chief suspect. He was also dead, gunned down in front of live TV cameras in the basement of the Dallas Police HQ just two days after being arrested. The killer was a shady local night club owner called Jack Ruby who was said to be the bagman and local Mafia fixer with the Dallas police.

The Warren Commission report offered three unequivocal conclusions: President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that Oswald acted entirely alone. It also concluded that Jack Ruby acted alone when he shot Oswald two days later.

The howl of protest that greeted the Warren Commission’s summary report, and the 26 volumes of supporting evidence which were subsequently published on 23 November 1964 was truly extraordinary. For the next three decades, doubts about the veracity of the Warren Commission findings, and a certainty that some sort of whitewash or government cover-up had taken place became the foundational touchstone beliefs of almost every twenty-some liberal college thinker or anti-Vietnam war radical and activist. Every single piece of evidence in the 26 volume documentation was dissected and disputed, and at least 40 major varieties of conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination took hold.

The most fascinating part of this story is that the Warren Commission’s key findings have in most cases eventually been proven to be entirely correct. Lee Harvey Oswald really did shoot President John. F. Kennedy, and he was the only gunman involved. The ‘Magic Bullet’ event really did happen just as Nicholas Katzenbach and other attorneys deduced in 1964 - this was proved decades later by NAA or neutron activation analysis of bullet fragments, and also by 3D modelling based on the Zapruder film record.

It only took 40 years to establish the veracity of the original Warren Commission findings - So don’t hold your breath over the Mueller Report.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby PaulN on March 24th, 2019, 11:32 am 

One difference being Mueller has successfully gotten convictions of half a dozen associates of the president. Another that Mueller passed parts of the investigation to other US Attorney offices, in DC, Virginia, and Manhattan.

But the main difference is that it's much harder to completely rule out a conspiracy (Warren Report) than it is to prove one (especially where solid multiple witness evidence and tapes and papers are all available).
PaulN
 


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby hyksos on March 27th, 2019, 1:23 am 

JFK was killed by the CIA. It was a genuine coup of the office of the POTUS. (in the actual sense, not in the one being used on Trump today).

Reason/motive : It was time for the USA to occupy and bomb Vietnam. JFK had to be removed from the picture to get this started.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby someguy1 on March 27th, 2019, 2:31 am 

toucana » March 24th, 2019, 4:14 am wrote:It only took 40 years to establish the veracity of the original Warren Commission findings ...


Nonsense. The Warren commission report was a whitewash start to finish. It's been thoroughly debunked. Even the US Congress no longer believes Oswald acted alone. Did you know that?

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 and 1968. The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the following year, concluding that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ssinations
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 758
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
TheVat liked this post


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on March 27th, 2019, 10:21 am 

It's always interesting to read old JFK conspiracy theories being recycled by people who have either never read, or not understood any of the factual scientific research that has been done over the years.

To answer some specific points:

- The conclusions of the 1979 HSCA report were rejected in their entirety from the outset by FBI and with good reason. The FBI have never to this day given the HSCA report any credence whatsoever.

- The 'Acoustics Analysis" of a police despatch dictabelt tape which the HSCA relied upon is completely and utterly flawed as was exposed by the work of Nobel award winning physicist Luis Alvarez who chaired a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel that re-examined the data and the methodology used by the consultants and found them to be simply wrong and unscientific respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording

- The acoustic analysis was also discredited by a painstaking 3D walk-thru computer graphics reconstruction created by animator Dale Myers which took 10 years to complete and demonstrates that police officer Mclain's motorcycle microphone was 150 feet away from the critical CEP location required by the acoustics HSCA analysis. (It also demonstrates that JFK and Connally were hit by a single shot at Zapruder frame 223, which was fired from the TSBD 6th floor window.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nUvSPFKJ3o

- The truly devastating evidence however comes from a Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) performed by Dr Vincent Guinn of University of California in 1977. Dr Guinn was the leading scientific authority on NAA techniques at the time and he was given access to all the surviving bullet fragments and debris recovered at Dealey Plaza. He made the following findings:

i. All the fragments recovered were 6.35mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition fired from Oswald's gun. There was no other weapon involved.
ii. The samples amounted to no more than two bullets in total.
iii. Fragments recovered from the front of the car and windshield matched fragments recovered from JFK's brain indicating he was shot in the head from from behind.
iv. The intact bullet recovered from a stretcher at Parkland hospital matched fragments recovered during surgery from the the wrist of Governor John Connally.
v. The mangled bullet recovered seven months before the Dallas shooting from the Edwin Walker crime scene was identified by NAA as a 6.35 Mannlicher Carcano bullet. This verifies Marina Oswald's claim that it was her husband who was the perpetrator of that earlier attempted shooting.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html

Guinn's team were able to achieve unusually accurate results because the 6.35mm ammunition involved (which had been manufactured by the Western cartridge Company in 1956) was made with recycled scrap lead cores with high and fluctuating levels of impurities such as Zinc, Silver and Antimony. Testing of control samples disclosed that they could distinguish between different bullets from one and the same production batch, and match fragments together with a 98% confidence level.

The findings of Guinn' team have been re-examined and peer reviewed on numerous occasions (most recently in 2006). They have never been faulted, and they are absolutely devastating to any of the favoured conspiracy theories still in circulation.

The scientific evidence is there and has been for years. It's up to you as to whether you want to believe in science or not.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)
TheVat liked this post


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby TheVat on March 27th, 2019, 1:31 pm 

This thread got interesting. I have not researched all the forensic science findings, but would say this: to clarify the discussion for onlookers, do we need to distinguish between a forensic theory of Oswald as the lone shooter and a theory in which he is the lone shooter but not the lone conspirator? Science may support the former, but not necessarily be able to fully address the latter.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on March 27th, 2019, 2:53 pm 

to clarify the discussion for onlookers, do we need to distinguish between a forensic theory of Oswald as the lone shooter and a theory in which he is the lone shooter but not the lone conspirator?


To give an idea of quite how odd this can get :-

How many people know that there was not one but *two* Texas School Book Depository buildings in Dallas Texas back in November 1963 ?

Both were operated by the Texas School Book Depository, a privately owned company incorporated in 1927 which specialised in supplying text books to schools and colleges. In November 1963 the company had only recently taken over the lease of the site at 411 Elm St. which was better known to many locals as "The Sexton Building" a former wholesale grocery store until 1961. The older School Book Depository premises were at 1917 N.Houston St. two blocks north of Dealey Plaza.

Oswald was hired by the TSBD on Tuesday October 15th 1963 as a temporary order filler at $1.25 per hour, and started work the next day. But it was matter of pure chance that he was assigned to work at the newer TSBD in Elm St. overlooking Dealey Plaza rather than the older building several blocks away. His friend Ruth Paine who had helped find Oswald the job assumed he was working at 1917 N. Houston site and didn't imagine he could possibly have any connection to the shooting when news of shots fired from the Elm St. TSBD first broke.

If you wish to believe in a "seamless conspiracy" that placed Oswald in the perfect position to shoot JFK, then:
In the first place you would have to assume that Ruth Paine and her entire circle of female friends were somehow part of the conspiracy (along with all the Dallas business owners who rejected Oswald's earlier applications for employment). Then you have to take into account the 50-50 chance that Oswald having been hired by the TSBD, got assigned to work at the Elm St. site rather than the one several blocks away in N.Houston St. You then have to consider the fact that Oswald's employment started on Wednesday October 16th which was over three weeks before anyone in Washington or Dallas had agreed to have a motor-car parade in Dallas, let alone decided which route it was going to follow.


The facts indicate that Oswald's employment at the TSBD arose by chance. He probably first saw one of the maps of the proposed parade route published in a local morning paper on either the 19th or 20th of November. According to workmates, Oswald was notoriously thrifty and rarely purchased newspapers himself. He preferred to read day-old copies in the lunchroom of the TSBD. It is entirely credible that the full significance of his location and the possibility of firing on JFK only occured to him on November 21, the day before the parade.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby davidm on March 27th, 2019, 3:49 pm 

hyksos » March 26th, 2019, 11:23 pm wrote:JFK was killed by the CIA. It was a genuine coup of the office of the POTUS. (in the actual sense, not in the one being used on Trump today).

Reason/motive : It was time for the USA to occupy and bomb Vietnam. JFK had to be removed from the picture to get this started.


This stuff always gets me. There is not a shred of evidence that the CIA or any other agency or person had anything to do with JFK’s assassination other than Lee Harvey Oswald. The House committee’s 1970s report has been long debunked; see, as mentioned above, the dictabelt finding. The Warren Commission findings have never been debunked — on the contrary, they have been more confirmed than ever, as noted in this thread.

This whole idea that the CIA or the deep state or whatever bumped off JFK to jumpstart the Vietnam war is based, moreover, on a total misreading of history — that JFK was some kind of flaming, kumbaya liberal who had to be disposed of in order to get LBJ in office and start a war.

The actual facts are very nearly precisely the opposite. LBJ was the liberal, not JFK. LBJ was a protege of FDR. Kennedy disliked the New Deal. He was a supporter of Red baiter Joe McCarthy. He was an unreconstructed Cold Warrior. He is on record as saying that responsibilities took precedence over rights. That was the whole theme of his 1960 acceptance address (“the New Frontier of which I speak sums up, not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them”) and his Inaugural Address (“ask not what you can do for your country…” “We will bear any price, pay any burden” … blah blah blah.)

JFK’s first or second televised press conference, in 1961, which can be found on YouTube, shows him standing before a big map of Southeast Asia, where at the time Laos was the focus of activity. The map shows the extent of Communist guerrilla infiltration into that country, and JFK spends almost the entire bloody news conference basically promising that this incursion would not stand.

JFK radically increased U.S. involvement in Vietnam over what Ike did. On the morning of his death, speaking in Forth Worth, he boasted about how Fort Worth military products were deterring the Commies in South Vietnam!

Does this sound like a man that the CIA needed to bump off to jumpstart the Vietnam War?

It is true that a few weeks before he was killed, Kennedy, in an interview with Walter Cronkite on CBS, expressed skepticism about the Vietnam venture, and said “I don’t think we can win there” and “in the final analysis, it’s their war,” speaking of the South Vietnamese. But if anything, LBJ was more skeptical than JFK of involvement in Vietnam, which we now know from his taped telephone conversations in 1964 discussing the Vietnam mess with Senator Richard Russell and others. It seems to the case that JFK’s own holdover people, led by Robert McNamara, were instrumental in pressing LBJ to go slogging off to war. It should also be noted that after becoming president, LBJ discovered CIA plots to kill Castro, approved by the Kennedy brothers, and ordered them to end, saying he had no intention of running a “Murder, Inc.” down in the Caribbean. I wonder if the CIA bargained for this when they bumped off JFK.

In short, not only is there no evidence — literally none — that the CIA killed JFK, there would have been no motive for them to do so, even if agents, roque or otherwise, were so inclined. If they wanted war, they had a better chance of it with JFK than LBJ, and would certainly have known this.

As to Oswald, the evidence is ironclad that he, and he alone, shot JFK. There is no evidence at all that he conspired with anyone.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Serpent liked this post


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby someguy1 on March 27th, 2019, 7:53 pm 

davidm » March 27th, 2019, 1:49 pm wrote:There is not a shred of evidence that the CIA or any other agency or person had anything to do with JFK’s assassination other than Lee Harvey Oswald.


Just a curious question in the spirit of conversation. Clearly we can agree to disagree on the ultimate conclusions. But when you say there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary of the Warren report, isn't that a bit of an overstatement? At the very height of the cold war some lowlife loser like Oswald defects to the Soviet Union, takes a bride who happens to be the niece of a colonel in the MVD, the Russian interior ministry's security service. Ok it's a coincidence, whatever. Then Oswald returns to the US with his bride and is welcomed back by the State department. At the height of the cold war. Does anyone believe that? Why didn't they toss him in a hole and then throw away the hole? Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense?

Oswald mysteriously appears in Mexico City, or perhaps it's his double. Then he comes back and shoots the president with a piece of shit rifle, and the very next day he's shot to death in the police station by a local strip club owner with Mafia connections. And you surely know that JFK shared a mistress with mafia boss Sam Giancana, and that the Mafia was plenty pissed at JFK for letting his brother Bobby ride herd on organized crime, after the Mafia had helped get JFK elected in 1960. All this stuff's a matter of historical record.

Ok fine. So you know all this and conclude that the Warren commission's 100% correct. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. But when you say there's not a shred of evidence -- that there's utterly no doubt at all -- I don't get that.

Isn't it possible to say something like, "Yes there are a LOT of strange coincidences and things that don't add up about this case, but I still believe Oswald did it."

But to say you can't even see all the loose ends? This is a case with nothing but loose ends. The Mafia and the Cubans and the CIA all hated Kennedy. The US government at the time had secret business dealings with the Mafia, paid them to keep the NYC docks running in WWII and more recently had hired them to kill Castro.

Isn't it possible, for example, that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself (something I don't personally believe) but that ALSO the Warren report is a pack of lies? One common view is that if the American public thought Oswald was a Russian agent they'd demand a nuclear war with Russia. So the Warren report was designed simply to put a lid on that possibility. That's a very common historical take.

Another is that the government was involved at that time in so much chicanery with the Cubans and the Mafia, that they dared not let the American people know about all the sleazy stuff going on. They only printed as much truth as they could without calling attention to the fact that the US government had been in bed with the Mafia -- literally, in JFK's case -- for over a decade?

There are perfectly benign reasons why the Warren report would be designed to hide the truth, or at least hide a lot of embarrassing and ugly facts.

So fine, have your conclusion.

But I don't understand how you can have no doubt about the official account of this case. If you saw a tv show where X kills Y then a Mafia guy kills X, and the big reveal in the story is that it's all a great big coinkydink ... you wouldn't buy it.

Why do you deny that there's even any DOUBT about this case? That's my question to you. How can anyone look at the totality of the political circumstances and the hundreds if not thousands of specific points of contention argued over for decades? How can you have 100% certainty about the entire contents, in every detail, of the Warren report? Not even a semicolon out of place. Do you personally vouch for the entirety of the Warren report, and deny any errors of commission or omission? Is that even a reasonable claim?

You know that Bobby Kennedy did not believe a word of the Warren report, nor did Jackie Kennedy. But you personally know the report to be the truth. How is that?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 758
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
LozzaTheVat liked this post


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on March 28th, 2019, 2:32 pm 

One historian of the JFK era has likened Oswald to a Rubik’s cube. Every time you manage to move the blocks around, and successfully resolve one facet of his personality, you will then find that the other five faces have now been thrown into confusion.

James Angleton the legendary CIA head of counter-espionage in the 1960/70s once described the scenario of the 1964 Nosenko defection (which he case-managed), and of Oswald’s relationship to the KGB as “A wilderness of mirrors”.

Nosenko was a Russian defector who claimed to have been the KGB agent who handled an urgent review of Lee Harvey Oswald’s file ordered by the Kremlin after the JFK assassination. Nosenko told his CIA handlers that the KGB had never attempted to recruit Oswald as an agent when he lived in the Soviet Union. This was critical information, but CIA officers became suspicious about discrepancies in Nosenko’s story, and put him under ‘hostile interrogation’ for five years before rehabilitating him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Nosenko

Others have invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill’s famous remark - “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped up in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian National interest.”

To me, Oswald is rather like what film-maker Alfred Hitchock once called a “Macguffin”.
In fiction, a MacGuffin is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or another motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The MacGuffin's importance to the plot is not the object itself, but rather its effect on the characters and their motivations.

A good example of a Macguffin is the statuette at the centre of the plot of the film The Maltese Falcon (1941).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Basically I fear you won’t ever make sense of this case by trying to understand Oswald’s personality or actions. They are self-contradictory and inexplicable. It’s a lot simpler to stick with the evidence that can be scientifically evaluated.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby davidm on March 28th, 2019, 3:51 pm 

someguy1 » March 27th, 2019, 5:53 pm wrote:Why didn't they toss him in a hole and then throw away the hole? Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense?


Because they had no legal right to throw him in a hole, and then throw away the hole. Then as now it is legal to travel anywhere, and so long as you are a U.S. citizen you are free to return to the U.S. at any time. The only exception nowadays is travel to nations or entities like ISIS deemed terror organizations. There are I believe at least 30 examples from 1958-1963 of people “defecting” to the Soviet Union but later returning to the U.S., no doubt after discovering, as Oswald did, that the “workers’ paradise” was a nightmare. None of them was thrown into a hole, nor could they have been.

However, after Oswald returned, he was interrogated twice by the FBI. The CIA considered interrogating him, but decided there was no need. Basically both agencies deemed him a harmless crank. I’ve no doubt that a lot of redacted material in intelligence agencies’ files about Oswald and the JFK assassination has to do with embarrassment over their failures to take Oswald more seriously as a threat, but I don’t think anyone had any specific reason to believe that he posed a threat to the life of JFK.

My earlier response was specifically to the idea that the CIA killed Kennedy in order to jumpstart the Vietnam war. I pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever for this, and that moreover, the CIA had no motive to do this — because JFK was the Cold Warrior, the hawk, whereas LBJ was the guy who wanted to build a Great Society and had to be wheedled into war by JFK’s holdover advisers like Robert McNamara. This is a matter of historical record. As I pointed out, we have LBJ’s recorded phone calls with Richard Russell and others showing his Hamlet-like, agonized indecision and ambivalence about Vietnam.

Elements within the CIA might have hated Kennedy, primarily because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but to say that the CIA hated Kennedy is to assert something impossible — institutions can’t hate anyone because they aren’t sentient. They’re institutions.

How do you think the CIA agents felt about LBJ summarily shutting down their “Murder Inc.” escapades against Castro? JKF and Bobby were gung-ho for that. Do you think they felt buyers’ remorse about LBJ?

Why would anyone say that the Warren Commission told “a pack of lies”? Earl Warren, Gerald Ford, all the people on it with good reputations, all just told a bunch of lies? Why? They were in on the conspiracy to kill JFK, too? Who wasn’t in on the conspiracy? The FBI did it, the CIA did it, the Mafia did it, Castro did it, the Soviets did it, some say that even JFK’s driver and his wife Jackie did it!

Maybe the Warren Commission got some stuff wrong, or even all of it wrong, but why not just say they got it wrong, rather than claim they told “a pack of lies”?

But they didn’t get it wrong — at least not when it comes to Oswald being the lone shooter. He was, and in exactly the way that the WC reported: the first bullet missed, the second bullet passed through JFK and struck Connally, the third hit JFK in the head.

Is it possible that Oswald was part of a wider conspiracy, as Booth was in the assassination of Lincoln? Sure, it’s possible — I don’t deny that. When I said that the evidence against Oswald was “ironclad,” I meant ironclad that he was the lone shooter — and it is ironclad. If Oswald had people putting him up to killing JFK, then, fine — show me the evidence. That Oswald lived in the Soviet Union for a time, or traveled to Mexico City or may have tried to defect to Cuba, is simply evidence of nothing with respect to the JFK assassination.

One of President Ford’s two would-be assassins, I believe it was the Manson disciple Squeakey (sp?) Fromme, had some kind of connection to the FBI — I think she was an FBI informant or some such. I could look it up, but why? We can now construct the following argument:

P1: President Ford, who was a member of the Warren Commission, told a bunch of lies about the JFK assassination and helped cover up the truth about it.

P2: The FBI was among those who conspired to kill JFK, and wanted to make sure that Ford would be silent about the conspiracy forever.

P3: Fromme was working on behalf of the FBI.

C: The FBI recruited Fromme to kill President Ford.

See anything wrong with that argument?

I do. Not only is the argument invalid — the conclusion, even if the premises were all true — is a big fat non sequitur. Moreover, even if the conclusion followed from the premises, the argument would be unsound unless and until each premise were actually demonstrated to be true.

Yet no one ever makes this argument about the attempts on Ford’s life, but such similar lame arguments are rife with respect to the JFK assassination.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Serpent on March 28th, 2019, 7:25 pm 

May I submit a speculation?
(Can't raise it to the status of theory, since it would take more time than I have to research.)
Assassins who act alone, prepared, watching, waiting for an opportunity, are more likely to succeed than conspiracies. I suspect the more people are involved and the more planning takes place, the more chances to mess it up.
Of course this doesn't include assassinations carried out by trained agents of a government military organization (Navy Seals, Praetorean Guard, Janissaries, etc. The CIA could, but I think they'd do it more neatly; leave not so much to chance.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3599
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby davidm on April 1st, 2019, 7:10 pm 

One of the most fascinating things about the JFK assassination is that the entire 
TV and radio record of that day, live as it happened, is online.

Early on, one of the networks identified witnesses as saying that the assassin was a “slender white man, probably about 30 years of age, who was firing from the vicinity of the Dallas Book Depository building.”

These live broadcasts made many mistakes, in a confusing torrent of information. But repeatedly, some key facts were agreed on. Three shots were fired. They came from in or around the Book Depository.

And they drive home an important point that is so often overlooked, forgotten, or deliberately suppressed: people saw Oswald in the Book Depository window with his gun. Some even distinctly recall his trademark smirk.

How in the world, after all, was a police bulletin sent out with Oswald’s description, unless there were describers? Why did the self-proclaimed patsy Oswald leave his job after JFK was killed, if he were innocent? Why did he shortly thereafter kill a police officer who had stopped to question him, if he were innocent? And why did the cop stop Oswald to question him in the first place? Because he had a description of JFK’s killer from witnesses!

Not only were their eyewitnesses, their were earwitnesses — the people one floor below Oswald who heard as he fired his gun three times and killed the president.

The ridiculous conspiracy theories around this killing is indicative of the sad decline in rational thinking in this country that has taken us on a slalom ride downward from JFK to Donald Trump.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby someguy1 on April 1st, 2019, 11:09 pm 

davidm » April 1st, 2019, 5:10 pm wrote:The ridiculous conspiracy theories around this killing is indicative of the sad decline in rational thinking in this country that has taken us on a slalom ride downward from JFK to Donald Trump.


The modern Democratic party would roundly reject JFK for his Catholicism. "The dogma lives loudly within you," as Senator DiFi said to Amy Coney Barrett. You'll see a lot more of that should Trump's presidency outlast RBG's tenure on the court. Barrett's up next. You'll need the extra large tub of buttered popcorn for that one.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mbunson/ ... within-you
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 758
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby BadgerJelly on April 1st, 2019, 11:43 pm 

People like a good story. If the story is too simple they decide to elaborate it and make it more entertaining. This is probably due to the fact that it remains easier to recall if it has some “umph!” to it.

That is basically my view of how “proto-religion” came into being. A set of information was passed on by emotional loaded narratives so they wouldn’t be so easily forgotten. As with any technique there were drawbacks. The same human fault for memory lives on in today’s societies but we’ve at least managed to fortify our knowledge a little by keeping records and applying logic.

As always though, what people want often goes against what they need. Only painful experience can teach us of some of our faulty assumptions/beliefs/memories.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Lozza on April 2nd, 2019, 7:52 am 

toucana,

Their fears were well founded. Lee Harvey Oswald, the putative gunman, was an utterly toxic chief suspect. He was also dead, gunned down in front of live TV cameras in the basement of the Dallas Police HQ just two days after being arrested. The killer was a shady local night club owner called Jack Ruby who was said to be the bagman and local Mafia fixer with the Dallas police.


Ever occur to you what a KNOWN bagman for the mob is doing surrounded by roughly 40 police and detectives in the underground car-park of the Dallas police HQ? How does a guy like this go unnoticed?!?



Did you also know that Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald were known associates? Or have you ever questioned why a known bagman for the mob suddenly decides to take it upon himself to kill Oswald? Especially since the mob was no friend to the Kennedy's at this time? The mob would have been applauding Oswald, not sanctioning a hit on him. Or is it just easier to subscribe to the nonsense of a lone, crazed gunman killing another lone, crazed gunman?

Ever read any of the books written by Jim Garrison who is the only law enforcement officer to have investigated the crime?

Ever wonder why there is not one scrap of paper that details any interview with the Dallas police and Lee Harvey Oswald? Apparently, the Dallas police don't take notes when an assassination takes place in their own front yard. Sure, that's believable.

Ever consider about the fact that 3 FBI marksman couldn't replicate the shots supposedly made by Oswald, and that he was rated as only an ordinary shooter by the army? Or that given the brief time-frame that the shots took place in, under 6 seconds, that the first shot is the only shot where a proper aim could be taken, yet that shot missed completely, the 2nd shot hit him in the throat and 3rd shot was the kill shot in the head? It's all in reverse! The best shot should be the first, not the last. Or, that it's physically impossible to shoot, reload and re-aim with any accuracy, a bolt-action rifle for the next two shots in that time-frame after the first shot?

Did you know that Oswald accidentally shot himself in the elbow while in the army, was charged for it, and later charged for needlessly discharging a weapon in the jungle? Now there's the trademark of a marksman if I ever heard of one...shooting himself in the elbow!

Ever consider how a guy like Oswald, defects to the USSR, speaks at least rudimentary Russian, (though many claim it was fluent), returns to the USA, and though the Cold War is running rampant, is not even questioned. This is unheard of for anyone else during the tensions of the Cold War in the 1950's and 1960's, particularly for those that had any military background, as Oswald did.

Ever wonder why the car was immediately cleaned and repaired afterwards instead of forensic evidence being obtained?

Ever wonder how they "lost" JFK's brain, so that no further forensic study could be made?

And of course, one of my favorites, that the "pristine bullet" was found on the stretcher carrying JFK's body. Sure, that's where we always find bullets of people that have been shot, laying right next to them on a stretcher in a pristine state. Please! Give me a break!!!

Ever wonder what a guy like Allen Dulles, ex-director of the CIA, who JFK FIRED, is doing on such a commission? Or the ex-president of the World Bank, John McCloy? Other than Chief Justice Warren, everyone else is a political appointment...for political expediency. But of course, this also suggests nothing untoward to most.

I'm continually amazed at how gullible people are when an authoritative figure in a suit spews forth swill and it is believed because he is in a suit and a position of authority. Politicians are professional liars, and yet people not only queue to hear what they have to say, but take it as the gospel truth.

The real problem here, is that people want to believe what's convenient, not what is confronting and the consequences of such confrontation. We all know that politicians lie to us...they make promises they have no intention to keep, that's the nature of politics, but we can live with that. What we can't accept, is that they would lie to us about anything else. Well, think again. Because if you lie to get into office, you'll certainly lie about anything else too, particularly if it serves your self-interest and the interest of your financial supporters.

War is big business and JFK wanted to wind-down the Vietnam War, while LBJ escalated the war. Business booms....from one pristine bullet found on the stretcher next to JFK's body.
Lozza
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 12 Nov 2018
TheVat liked this post


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on April 2nd, 2019, 1:32 pm 

Ever been to Dallas and walked around the Grassy knoll, or been up inside the TSBD and looked out of the window from the sixth floor the sniper's nest down at the plaza ?

Or stood on the plinth that Abraham Zapruder once stood on, with a modern digital camera set to mimic his focal range so that you could check the field of view and zoom parameters ?

I did all of that - (back in November 2003 during the w/e of the 40th anniversary).

I was actually a 10 y/o kid back in 1963 who was watching early evening TV shows in UK when the first reports started coming in from USA. I was still watching TV two days later when Oswald was gunned down in front of the live cameras in that Dallas Police HQ basement

I knew all about the Jim Garrison investigation in New Orleans and the failed trial of Clay Shaw. Followed it in real time back in the 1960s as it happened. Reckon I have probably read every single piece of serious, and not so serious, investigative research published on the case from Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson and Jim Garrisons's On The Trail Of The Assassins onwards.

I have watched, or indeed shown ( I'm a film projectionist) all the fictional reconstructions from Executive Action to Oliver Stone's JFK. Also own an HD digital re-render and stop-frame edit of the Zapruder film too.

The sad fact is that all of that conspiracy theory you cite is now to me simply white noise, froth, and static. It means nothing. It is nothing. It has no factual, evidential basis - It simply isn't real.

If you feel you really must, then go to Dallas and spend some time in Dealey Plaza. It's quite an interesting and insightful experience in many ways. Visit the Sixth Floor Museum of course, but don't miss the alternative Conspiracy Museum on the junction of Commerce and Market, (out the back of the old Red Courthouse). I particularly recommend the basement display about the Roswell incident and the Martians.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby davidm on April 2nd, 2019, 4:51 pm 

Lozza,

I have to say, your long post above is nothing shy of a heterogenous mishmash of urban myths, misrepresentations, baseless speculations, long-debunked claims, and out and out lies perpetrated by all sorts of hucksters who made a profitable cottage industry for themselves promoting JFK conspiracy theories.

I could rebut it point by point, but why? You won’t listen anyway. You believe what you want to believe, and make the evidence fit your beliefs, even if the evidence isn’t there!

Still, I can’t resist touching on a number of points.

Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby were known associates? Really? Then it should be very simple for you to substantiate this claim, since I, personally, do not know anything of the kind. Evidence. please!

As to Jack Ruby, he was well known to Dallas police officers, whom he entertained at his nightclub. That’s probably why they let him downstairs — he was always hanging out with the cops. Whether they knew he had connections with the mob, I’ve no idea. What difference would it make if they did? Maybe some of the cops themselves were mobbed up. So? Are you seriously suggesting that all those cops downstairs waiting for Oswald to be brought out to be transferred to another jail were in on the conspiracy to kill JFK? And that they knew Ruby was there to silence Oswald? Are you kidding me? This is how insane this stuff is! In addition to the fact that there is NO evidence to substantiate a claim of police collusion, the claim is absurd on the face of it!

If, as I suggested, you looked at the original radio and TV broadcasts of the JFK assassination and its aftermath, to which I supplied a link, you will find the live coverage of the shooting of Oswald. And you will see that almost immediately after the shooting, after the cops subdued Ruby, a police officer candidly told reporters that the cops knew who the shooter was. Does that sound like a coverup to you?

Jim Garrison — ha! Completely debunked. A huckster of the worst kind. A con artist and self-seeking moral swindler who would do Trump proud.

Yeah, the Dallas police did not take notes of the Oswald interviews — not taking notes was standard practice at that time among most police departments! But here again, are you seriously suggesting that the Dallas Police Department was itself in on a conspiracy to kill JFK? What evidence do you have to substantiate this ridiculously implausible claim? If they were in on such a conspiracy, what difference would it make whether they took notes or not? They could make up the content of the notes to suit their nefarious purposes, obviously!

The three shots were NOT fired in UNDER six seconds.

Oswald was not even questioned after returning from the Soviet Union? WRONG. 
As I pointed out in an earlier post, which you evidently did not read, or have conveniently decided to ignore. The FBI questioned him TWICE, and then later, kept him and his wife under surveillance. Oswald found about the surveillance and even complained to the FBI about it! Honestly, it just boggles the mind — not only is what you are saying wholly nonfactual, but you seem to be suggesting that the Dallas Police Department, Jack Ruby, the Mafia, the CIA, all were in on a conspiracy to kill JFK — madness! Who WASN’T in on it?

Based on someone else’s comment earlier, wondering why, after Oswald returned from the Soviet Union, the Powers That Be didn’t throw him in a hole and then throw away the hole, it is pretty darned ironic that some of you who think that JFK was killed by some kind of domestic fascist coup evidently have no problem with fascism practiced against individuals. The FBI had NO AUTHORITY to do anything about Oswald after he returned from the USSR other than to question him and then keep him under surveillance, which is what they did. It was NOT illegal for him to expat to the Soviet Union and then return to the U.S. and, as I earlier noted, at least 30 people did this very same thing in the period 1958-1963.

At this point I’m going to break off and not address the rest of your so-called points. Maybe I’ll return to them later but I wanted to finish with this. You write:

War is big business and JFK wanted to wind-down the Vietnam War, while LBJ escalated the war.


Ha! As I pointed out in my prior post, the evidence suggests just the opposite — it was JFK who greatly expanded the U.S. role in Nam over what Ike did, and even boasted about the U.S. role there in speech in Fort Worth, hours before he was killed. Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, a pal of Joe McCarthy, and a foe of the New Deal. LBJ was a protege of FDR, a believer in massive domestic reform that JFK shied from, and did NOT want to get involved in Vietnam. It was JFK’s holdovers, principally Robert McNamara, who persuaded LBJ to send in the troops. LBJ agonized over Vietnam. Yet here you are, presenting your mythical little narrative that comports with what you desire to believe rather than what the evidence shows.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby davidm on April 2nd, 2019, 5:15 pm 

Here is Jim Garrison on the JFK “conspiracy.” By golly, it was a homosexual thrill killing!

In an effort to get Garrison's story into focus, I asked him the motive of the Kennedy conspirators. He told me that the murder at Dallas had been a homosexual plot.

"They had the same motive as Loeb and Leopold, when they murdered Bobbie Franks in Chicago back in the twenties," Garrison said. "It was a homosexual thrill-killing, plus the excitement of getting away with a perfect crime. John Kennedy was everything that Dave Ferrie was not — a successful, handsome, popular, wealthy, virile man. You can just picture the charge Ferrie got out of plotting his death.”

I asked how he had learned that the murder was a homosexual plot.

"Look at the people involved," Garrison said. "Dave Ferrie, homosexual. Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual.”

"Ruby was a homosexual?”

"Sure, we dug that out," Garrison said. "His homosexual nickname was Pinkie. That's three. Then there was Lee Harvey Oswald.”

But Oswald was married and had two children, I pointed out.

"A switch-hitter who couldn't satisfy his wife," Garrison said. "That's all in the Warren Report." He named two more "key figures" whom he labeled homosexual.

"That's six homosexuals in the plot," Garrison said. "One or maybe two, okay. But all six homosexual? How far can you stretch the arm of coincidence?”

I told him that was an intriguing theory, but it wasn't evidence he could present to a court. (James Phelan, Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels, pp. 150-151.)


:-D
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby davidm on April 2nd, 2019, 5:35 pm 

I had to double check this, because I haven’t thought about this stuff in years, but in actual fact, there is no evidence that Ruby had mob connections — quite the opposite!

As a person, Ruby seems very similar to Oswald. Maybe that helps explain why they both, by themselves, did what they did.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby TheVat on April 2nd, 2019, 6:31 pm 

I could rebut it point by point, but why? You won’t listen anyway. You believe what you want to believe, and make the evidence fit your beliefs, even if the evidence isn’t there!


Dave - point of order here...

I don't think Lozza has really given you cause to assume he/she is not listening or is entrenched on these issues. That's an unfriendly approach, and is ad hominem enough to turn off anyone on the receiving end. Please try to make a good faith effort to engage with a post and assume we're all here to challenge our ideas a bit. I'm learning a lot about the range of theories from Toucana, SomeGuy, Lozza, and you. Let's keep it friendly and, if possible, open to interpretations that aren't "either/or."
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on April 2nd, 2019, 9:18 pm 

Lozza wrote:
Ever wonder why there is not one scrap of paper that details any interview with the Dallas police and Lee Harvey Oswald? Apparently, the Dallas police don't take notes when an assassination takes place in their own front yard. Sure, that's believable.

As it happens, the Dallas police investigators and the FBI officers did in fact take contemporaneous notes of their interviews with principal suspect Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in custody in Dallas police HQ, and what is more, those notes survived and were made available to the public as long ago as 1997.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/21/us/interrogator-s-notes-say-oswald-denied-assassination-role.html
The handwritten notes of the Dallas police homicide chief who questioned Lee Harvey Oswald were released today, two days before the 34th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The notes, which Capt. J. W. Fritz said he made several days after the interrogation, supported major points he made in 1964 during his testimony before the Warren Commission.

Captain Fritz, who died in 1984, told the commission that Oswald, under interrogation, denied assassinating Kennedy, denied owning a rifle and contended that a famous photograph of him holding a rifle in his Dallas backyard was a forgery.

Likewise, Captain Fritz wrote in his notes that Oswald ''denies owning rifle in garage or elsewhere. . . . Says I made picture super imposed.''

Captain Fritz was the lead investigator for the Dallas Police Homicide Department. His notes match those of the lead FBI investigator James B. Hosty jr. that were released the same year.
The notes, released by the Assassination Records Review Board, are only the second set of original, handwritten notes from the interrogation that have surfaced in 34 years. Earlier this year, the board released notes by a former agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James P. Hosty Jr., who also questioned Oswald.

It is worth noting that the SCOTUS decision in Miranda V. Arizona did not happen until 1966, and that under Texas law as it stood in 1963, Oswald's verbal answers to investigators' questions would not have been admissible in evidence at his trial anyway.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Lozza on April 3rd, 2019, 12:23 am 

toucana » April 3rd, 2019, 4:32 am wrote:Ever been to Dallas and walked around the Grassy knoll, or been up inside the TSBD and looked out of the window from the sixth floor the sniper's nest down at the plaza ?

Or stood on the plinth that Abraham Zapruder once stood on, with a modern digital camera set to mimic his focal range so that you could check the field of view and zoom parameters ?

I did all of that - (back in November 2003 during the w/e of the 40th anniversary).


No, unfortunately I haven't, I'm not American, and though I have no doubt that it would be an interesting experience, I don't see that it holds any relevance. It would be like you and I going to Omaha Beach and then stating that we have an intimate understanding of what occurred on D-Day...no we wouldn't, as we weren't there. Regardless of how vivid our imaginations might be, it's not the same as being there on the day.

I was actually a 10 y/o kid back in 1963 who was watching early evening TV shows in UK when the first reports started coming in from USA. I was still watching TV two days later when Oswald was gunned down in front of the live cameras in that Dallas Police HQ basement


I was 6. So what? But it is nice to know that I'm younger than someone. :)

I knew all about the Jim Garrison investigation in New Orleans and the failed trial of Clay Shaw. Followed it in real time back in the 1960s as it happened. Reckon I have probably read every single piece of serious, and not so serious, investigative research published on the case from Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson and Jim Garrisons's On The Trail Of The Assassins onwards.


That's refreshing, as most people that I've spoken to about this topic haven't read anything other than the newspapers.

The sad fact is that all of that conspiracy theory you cite is now to me simply white noise, froth, and static. It means nothing. It is nothing. It has no factual, evidential basis - It simply isn't real.


But the report of a group of people that have nothing but self-interest at heart is real. Really? I take the opposite view...I would sooner give credence to an educated and experienced criminal investigator like Jim Garrison, who had impeccable bona fides, against a group of men with self-interest at heart. Oh, and don't forget to draw your pay-cheque from the CIA for using their term "conspiracy theory", I'm sure they appreciate you doing their job for them.

If you feel you really must, then go to Dallas and spend some time in Dealey Plaza. It's quite an interesting and insightful experience in many ways. Visit the Sixth Floor Museum of course, but don't miss the alternative Conspiracy Museum on the junction of Commerce and Market, (out the back of the old Red Courthouse). I particularly recommend the basement display about the Roswell incident and the Martians.


No, I have no urge to go to the USA. But thanks for the double slur...not only a conspiracy theorist, but apparently I wear a tin-foil hat too (your Roswell comment).

So, in summation of your reply, you won't address even a single point, imply that walking the area gives you some special insight and finish with a double slur. It must be wonderful to feel so self-righteous while insulting someone else.

I concede that the tone of my post was a bit facetious, for I find the Warren Report insulting, as I do all government commissions of inquiry....they are exercises in tokenism...to be seen to be doing something. But in essence, they are political white-washes to get the general public off their backs, and that's why you have political appointments on those commissions, rather than qualified independent analysts with expertise in the area. In my country there has just recently been a Royal Commission on Banking where the major banks have been found to be using corrupt practices. Would you like to know the outcome? No charges have been laid, let alone any convictions, and the banks have basically blamed their clients for their own conduct and punished the clientele. Many years ago there were 3 Royal Commissions into one of our State Premiers (the equivalent to your State Governors), Neville Wran. The first 2 commissions came up with no result at all. At the completion of the third commission, one of the magistrates made this comment (it's not verbatim, but the sentiment is correct) "We find ourselves in an awkward situation, whereby Mr Wran has been so clever in weaving his web, that even we sitting on the commission find ourselves, at least in some small way, implicated in at least some of his dealings. To bring him down is to bring down the entire legal system of the State. I'm sorry, we can do nothing." The only surprise here was how forthright the comment was, not that Wran was a corrupt ass.

It's your prerogative to believe whatever you believe, just as it is mine. But the last entity I would ever give any credence to for their veracity and integrity, is politicians. You speak of "white noise", that's the sound of politicians you hear.
Lozza
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 12 Nov 2018
TheVat liked this post


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Lozza on April 3rd, 2019, 12:43 am 

toucana » April 3rd, 2019, 12:18 pm wrote:Lozza wrote:
Ever wonder why there is not one scrap of paper that details any interview with the Dallas police and Lee Harvey Oswald? Apparently, the Dallas police don't take notes when an assassination takes place in their own front yard. Sure, that's believable.

As it happens, the Dallas police investigators and the FBI officers did in fact take contemporaneous notes of their interviews with principal suspect Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in custody in Dallas police HQ, and what is more, those notes survived and were made available to the public as long ago as 1997.


"As long ago as 1997...". Sure, there's nothing suspicious about those notes surfacing 34 years after the event. If it is as cut and dry as you and the Warren Commission would like to imply, that Oswald was nothing but a lone, crazed gunman, then why any secrecy at all? Why then, wasn't it available much sooner, particularly to a fellow law-enforcement officer like Garrison?
Lozza
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 12 Nov 2018


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Lozza on April 3rd, 2019, 1:12 am 

TheVat » April 3rd, 2019, 9:31 am wrote:
I could rebut it point by point, but why? You won’t listen anyway. You believe what you want to believe, and make the evidence fit your beliefs, even if the evidence isn’t there!


Dave - point of order here...

I don't think Lozza has really given you cause to assume he/she is not listening or is entrenched on these issues. That's an unfriendly approach, and is ad hominem enough to turn off anyone on the receiving end. Please try to make a good faith effort to engage with a post and assume we're all here to challenge our ideas a bit. I'm learning a lot about the range of theories from Toucana, SomeGuy, Lozza, and you. Let's keep it friendly and, if possible, open to interpretations that aren't "either/or."


Thank you for defending me, but it's okay, I have him on my ignore list. Btw, I'm a bloke.

Cheers,
Loz.
Lozza
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 12 Nov 2018


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby TheVat on April 3rd, 2019, 9:30 am 

Cheers. I try not to assume. I did glean UK or Commonwealth nation, from "paycheque." Looks like about half of our currently active members hail from such lands.

I wasn't defending you btw, as you clearly know how to handle yourself on a message board. The banking corruption thing sounds interesting, and Australian. Will look that up.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Lozza on April 3rd, 2019, 10:07 am 

TheVat » April 4th, 2019, 12:30 am wrote:Cheers. I try not to assume. I did glean UK or Commonwealth nation, from "paycheque." Looks like about half of our currently active members hail from such lands.

I wasn't defending you btw, as you clearly know how to handle yourself on a message board. The banking corruption thing sounds interesting, and Australian. Will look that up.


Yes, very Australian...lolol.

Cheers,
Loz.
Lozza
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 12 Nov 2018


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby toucana on April 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am 

Lozza wrote:
So, in summation of your reply, you won't address even a single point, imply that walking the area gives you some special insight and finish with a double slur. It must be wonderful to feel so self-righteous while insulting someone else.

I have already cited scientific sources earlier in this thread which fully disposed of the ‘acoustics evidence’ relied on by the 1979 HSCA, which also rejected any trajectory arguments in favour of a shooter on the north knoll (there are two of them in Dealey Plaza), and which annihilated the possibility of any ballistics evidence that would favour a second shooter, or the use of more than one weapon.

Once you have disposed of all the evidential questions relating to the acoustics, trajectory analysis, and ballistics of a forensic shooting examination, then there really isn’t a lot left to discuss.

I do think it is a shame you have never been to the USA, nor visited Dealey Plaza. Here is a snippet of my notes from that visit in 2003 where I struggled to capture my first impressions:-
It is much smaller than you think. Seen through the lens of a camera, the artful landscaping, gentle slopes and mock colonnade architecture of the follies exaggerate and widen the perspective. In reality the pergola on the north knoll is just 30 paces in length.

The stone plinth that Abraham Zapruder stood on is just a dozen paces from the turn of the fence. The run of the palisade fence hides 10 parking spaces before you meet the railroad tracks and the path onto the overbridge.

Two short flights of 10 steps apiece joined by a wider landing link the road level sidewalk to the top of the knoll. The gradient of the plaza is steeper than it appears in photos. If you stand by the north reflective pool, the road falls so sharply to the west, that the sightline to the lower third of it is lost under the parapet of the triple overbridge.

The small dimensions of the plaza (just 3 acres) are a shock, and so is the sense of being in a place where the clock hands of history stopped at exactly 12.30 so many years ago. You have the uncanny feeling (reported by many) of being an actor on a giant movie set.

The acoustics are truly weird. The concrete pedestrian tunnels under the bridge are colossal reverberation chambers. Your own footsteps clang and distort around your ears as you walk through.

The south pergola is a mirror image of the north, but has no access onto the railbridge. It bears a plaque commemorating an old ferry service (The Trinity river lies a short way beyond).
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby PaulN on April 3rd, 2019, 11:26 am 

I think we get that Toucan has seriously researched the JFK shooting. Can we give everyone the courtesy of allowing that they may have gathered possibly relevant facts without requiring "boots on the ground" ?
PaulN
 


Re: A Report Is Submitted

Postby Lozza on April 3rd, 2019, 1:52 pm 

Toucana,

Sorry, I hadn't read your second post, I had only read your OP. Upon reading your second post I can see that you and I will have to agree to disagree. You and I view the world, not just this topic, very differently. And please, correct me if I'm wrong. You are what I term a "true believer"...in a nutshell, you believe in the system of government, that basically politicians try to do the correct thing by the people and though government is not perfect, it is mostly honorable, and that "democracy" exists.

Would that be a fair assessment?

I, on the other hand, call politics the biggest crime story on the planet...just follow the money and everthing makes sense. I see government as a tool of wealth that rules over the people on behalf of wealth. Cynical, I hear say? I appreciate how it sounds that way, but the proof is in the pudding...regardless of what political party is in power, just look at how many laws are passed for and on behalf of wealth, then look at the paltry crumbs that are dished out to the general public, if any, often watered-down or later repealed by another government. Government DOES NOT serve the people. They all say they do, but I've yet to see one. They serve wealth, for that's who finances their campaigns, or thrust to power, whether it be a legal process or the overturning or usurping of a regime, or a coup. And wealth expects favors in return for that financial support.

And I'm not talking of only the American government, it's ALL governments. No "ruler" can rule without the support of wealth...a monarch requires the support of nobles, a president the support of business entities, even dictators need financial support to seize and maintain power. History is a litany of what I describe.

On that basis, we can never see eye to eye on topics such as this. We can only bang our heads against the wall in frustration.

But while I'm at it, as an aside, I read your OP about Karl Marx...it was refreshing and a joy to see an American understand that he was an economist, and a very astute one at that. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Lozza
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 12 Nov 2018


Next

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests