Discussion:
OT: Jack Maybrick's anti-JFK reading list
(too old to reply)
Grizzlie Antagonist
2003-11-24 03:53:52 UTC
Permalink
I don't see how any president, having actually undermined the South
Vietnamese government, could possibly have been in a position to leave
Vietnam.
The argument that Kennedy was killed because he was "about" to
withdraw from South Vietnam has always struck me as profoundly
cynical.
Apparently there was a Presidential order in effect, according to the
History Channel. It required 1,000 troops home by year end, and all
troops out during 1964.
I think that is one of the legends of which the Stone/Prouty view of
the assassination is based. This was an option being considered; it
was NOT an order in effect.
And my question again is, why the Diem coup if we were on the verge of
leaving Vietnam?
The History Channel cites a particular Executive Order by number and
recounts its contents. One of the contentions is that Kennedy didn't
like what the CIA had been doing in Viet Nam and was ordering them to
stop.
Hello, McFly!

The coup. The coup. The coup against Ngo Dinh Diem that had taken
place on November 1, 1963. The coup which had been urged by JFK and
carried out by his "enemies" in the CIA.

Having undermined South Vietnam's government, Kennedy was no more in a
position to leave South Vietnam than W is in a position to leave Iraq
after having driven out Saddam Hussein.
He had fired the CIA Director for getting us
into the Viet Nam situation.
Dulles was fired for the Bay of Pigs, early in the Kennedy
Administration, long before November 1963. Sounds like the History
Channel needs a brush-up course on history.
Only one plane load of troops had returned
home by the time of the assassination. Johnson immediatly canceled the
order and appointed the former CIA Director to the Warren Commission,
according to the History Channel's report.
Yes, Dulles was on the Warren Commission panel.
Suppose America had ended up WINNING the Vietnam War. You wouldn't
hear any Kennedy partisan arguing that Kennedy would have cut and run.
In 1963 it wasn't much of a war. Just a few thousand "advisors" and CIA
operatives.
That is beside the point. If America had won the war in Vietnam, none
of Kennedy's partisans would be arguing TODAY that Kennedy would have
withdrawn from Vietnam.
So the argument that he would have appears, in large part, to be using
historical hindsight for self-serving purposes.
You obviously don't like Kennedy.
Truly sir, you are cognizant of much that is hidden. Very little
escapes your eagle eye.
Does that solve a murder mystery?
I don't regard this as a "murder mystery". I am virtually certain
that Secret Service Agent George Warren Hickey accidentally blew off
JFK's head while trying to return Oswald's fire.

And in this instance, adoration of JFK clouds what you refer to as a
"murder mystery".

If the belief of starry-eyed zealots that JFK was about to leave South
Vietnam is wrong, then the motive ascribed to the supposed
conspirators must also be wrong. Capeesh?
One of the first things LBJ did was to reverse that order.
LBJ also stopped Robert Kennedy's war on organized crime.
Big changes were made.
The Kennedys did not make war on organized crime. The Kennedys WERE
organized crime.
LOL. My memory of the Kennedy Administration, Robert Kennedy Attorney
General, was that the DOJ was conduction a large scale prosecution of
organized crime bosses.
The Kennedys took political assistance from organized crime in order
to win the White House. Voter irregularities in Cook County, Illinois
that helped put them in the White House was at least partially due to
mob involvement with the party machine.
The mob has always supported Democrats. Robert Kennedy was leading a
DOJ war agaisnt organized crime. That's not conjecture.
He was prosecuting certain underworld elements. However, the Kennedys
received political and logistical assistance from the mob. That isn't
conjecture either.

It's certainly conceivable that the mob regarded this as a "double
cross" and contemplated retaliation against the Kennedys.

If they did so, it is NOT because the Kennedys were paragons of virtue
but because they reneged on the deal.

The mob does not kill outsiders or honest politicians, only those who
have crossed the line. To refuse to acknowledge this is to allow
one's adoration of JFK to cloud the "murder mystery".

It is all irrelevant anyway. Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman
who fired at JFK with intent to kill. George Warren Hickey fired at
JFK by accident. Neither one is or was a mobster.
In addition there were several Texas corruption
figures like Billy Sol Estes, and Baker who were being prosecuted and
that trail would have likely (if anyone talked or plea bargained) led to
Johnson's incitement on corruption charges.
The assassination put an
end to all that.
Johnson paid a million dollars to Bobby Baker to shut him up; he
didn't need to become President to make a payoff to him.
The investigation was being conducted by the Senate and not by the
Kennedy DOJ.
The investigation was NOT shut down in the immediate aftermath of the
assassination.
Yea, right. All the Texas corruption was thoroughly investigated and
Johnson's connections prosecuted. Sure.
I didn't say so. I said that Bobby Baker took a million dollars from
LBJ and went to jail and shut up until after Johnson died and he was
released from jail.

I said that the investigation was not shut down in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination. It wasn't.
The History Channel interviewed one of Johnson's lawyers who handled
some of the payoffs and swears that Johnson was involved up to his eyelids.
In payola, graft, and political razzle-dazzle? Yes, he was. That
isn't a secret.
In the JFK homicide? No.
Johnson's lawyer says otherwise. I guess you know more than he.
Johnson's lawyer says that Johnson was absolutely involved in the
assassination.
I guess that I do. I don't believe for one moment that any reputable
and sane attorney claims personal knowledge that LBJ killed JFK.
According to witnesses interviewed on camera, including LBJ's mistress,
there was a meeting in Dallas the night before the assassination that
included LBJ and Hoover along with several others also involved. The
mistress quotes LBJ as saying that those &$(%&#* Kennedies won't be a
problem any more.
According a woman that I once saw interviewed on TV, Elvis was her
roommate from 1977 to 1984, after he had been declared dead by the
coroner in Memphis.
She reportedly passed a polygraph examination, as well.
They had hundreds of witnesses,
Hundreds? How many hours did that special last?
some of them very credible.
Some?
So not all of them were very credible?
All of them witnesses, some more trained in what they say. For exempt
the soldier who had just returned from infantry training was credible to
recognize the sound of a bullet whizzing past his ear.
Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. Earwitness evidence is not reliable
as a means of establishing the origin of the shots.

In addition to your soldier, Mary Elizabeth Woodward is another
witness who stood near the grassy knoll and described a "horrible
ear'shattering noise" coming from behind her and to the right.

Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber, and she was mistaken as to the
location of the shot. However, she accurately described the sound
that would have been made by the Secret Service agent's AR-15 - which
makes a louder and sharper report than that which would have been made
by a rifle likely to be used by a professional sniper.
The news
r> reporter who's story got changed by the SS before it got printed.



The Secret Service couldn't even edit itself, let alone anyone else.
The statements made by the Secret Service agents are very much part of
the proof that one of them fired at JFK by accident.
The
nurses from the hospital who stood and talked to each other about the
bullet hole in the car window.
Really? Nurses from the hospital examined the vehicle and not the
patient?

Iin point of fact, there were splintered glass fragments on the INSIDE
of the windshield which a hasty witness might refer to as "bullet
holes". But no bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine is
visible in the photographs of the ride to Parkland.
The head doctor in the trauma unit who
describes an entry bullet wound in the forehead and exit wound taking
20% of the brain out the back.
....probably does not exist.

Or maybe someone in the presidential limousine performed some sort of
mercy killing on the way to Parkland.

Because, you see, Zapruder frame 321, eight frames after the headshot
in frame 313, gives a pretty good vantage point of the back of
Kennedy's head, and it shows no exit wound.

The Mary Moorman photo was taken from the vantage of the left rear of
the presidential vehicle. Conspiracy theorists have tried to use it
to prove the existence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. But oops -
whatever they gain from the knoll - they lose from the victim.

Because the Moorman photo has an even better vantage point of the back
of Kennedy's head than does the Zapruder film. No exit wound.
The expert forensic pathologist with 30
years of experience.
..., if he exists, must not have been on any of the panels who
examined the autopsy photos and concluded that all wounds were caused
from the rear.
The fingerprint expert with 35 years of
experience.
Fingerprint expert? Conspiracy theorists don't seem to be impressed
with fingerprint evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle.
These are credible witnesses to parts of the crime.
Er - "expert" witnesses are not the same as percipient witnesses to
the crime.
Some of the witnesses may be less credible, such as the woman who claims
to have been the mistress of Lee H. Oswald. Even a less credible
witness may be telling the truth sometimes.
If a less credible witness might be telling the truth, then, by the
same token, a "credible" witness might not be.
One was a
uniformed army man who was home on leave who dropped to the ground when
the bullet wizzed past his ear.
What does that prove? Where was he standing? When did he drop?
Standing in front of the picket fence on the knoll. He's in the
background of the photo taken from across the street. He dropped when
the bullet fired from the knoll came close to his head. Since he had
j> just returned from army live fire combat training he can be
expected to
have accurately recognized the sound and feel of a bullet passing close
by.
But not its origin. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber.
It proves that Oswald was not the only shooter, if he fired at all.
That is correct. Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter who fired at
the President with intent to kill. The soldier heard George Warren
Hickey's AR-15 go off from the follow-up Secret Service vehicle -
except that Hickey fired by accident and struck JFK in the head. It
was a "mortal error".
The
evidence agaisnt Oswald seems to be very thin at best.
The evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is voluminous. It's
mountainous.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a true-believing Marxist. The conspiracy
industry is dominated by the political Left, and the political Left
perceives an interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.

That's why the mountain of evidence against Oswald is disdained or
ignored.

If Oswald had been a right-winger, the conspiracy industry probably
would not have been created, and 90% of what has been written about
the JFK homicide never would have been written. If Oswald had been a
right-winger, belief in Oswald's guilt would have become a sacrament
for the Left.
Someone across the street got a photo
of him in uniform near a man shooting at Kennedy.
What do you mean that the uniformed witness was "near a man shooting
at Kennedy"? Isn't your focus just a little off?
The soldier was standing on the knoll in front of the picket fence when
someone behind him fired a shot. From that angle the bullet would have
hit Kennedy in the front.
Never mind the man in uniform. Where's the photo of the "man shooting
at Kennedy"?
Standing behind the army guy. The FBI has the film but the History
Channel used a copy and some enhancement techniques to make the
background more visible.
Considering that the so-called History Channel couldn't even use a
reference book to find that Allen Dulles was discharged from the CIA
in 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, I have no confidence in their
"enhancement" techniques.

The area around the grassy knoll was occupied by a large number of
bystanders. A sniper would have been taking a tremendous risk of
being seen.

And Kennedy received no frontal wounds.
There was a "man shooting at Kennedy" near a bystanding witness in
uniform? Are you sure the "man shooting at Kennedy" didn't also
present his driver's license to the nearest cop and turn himself in?
Yep.
Why didn't he? If he was going to fire at the President in the
presence of witnesses anyway, why didn't he turn himself in?
Several dozen witnesses reported seeing and hearing shots coming
from the grassy knoll. The Warren commission didn't interview any of
them.
The Warren Commission inquiry was flawed in many ways - especially in
light of its desire to protect the Secret Service from exposure at the
expense of the truth.

However, there were no shots fired from the grassy knoll. So it's a
moot point.
The people on the History Channel piece tracked down the gunman, who he
was, who hired him, who paid him and where, how he got to the US, how he
left, where he finally died, etc. He as supposedly an international
crime hit man hired through some Italian mob connections. See the video.
Uh, are you sure that I should believe the History Channel and its
"confessed" gunman?

Or should I believe Hugh McDonald, another crime investigator, who
tracked down a DIFFERENT international hitman who called himself
"Saul" who "confessed" to have fired the fatal shot - not from the
grassy knoll ("Saul" says no gunmen were stationed there)- but from
BEHIND the motorcade in the Dallas County Records Building?

Or should I believe a tabloid story that I once read, in which they
interviewed someone who "confessed" to having fired at JFK from an
underground sewer?

Or should I believe any of the other "confessions" that have surfaced
or that might have surfaced over the years?
Another reliable
witness (from several DEA cases) says he handled the payoff for the
gunmen in the photo. The History Channel goes on for hours and hours
with long interviews of many people involved. Even the glass shop
manager of the Ford plant in Michigan who had to replace the windshield
glass on the limo to hide the bullet hole from the front testifies in
writing.
Really? Was this supposed glass shop manager one of the "very
credible witnesses" or one of the not-so-credible witnesses? After
all, you said that only "some" of the witnesses were very credible.
They sent the limo all the way from Dallas to Dearborn to hide a
bullet hole, did they? No local glass shop in Dallas or on the route
from Dallas to Dearborn was able to do the job, eh? They had to use
this particular glass shop in Dearborn because it specialized in
assassination conspiracies?
You can't get glass for custom made limo at your neighborhood 7-11, or
at least not at mine. You have to go to where they make custom limo
glass. The SS flies the cars around all the time. That part was no big
problem. For them its probably as easy as going to the local glass shop.
The car went back to DC for several days, and then was missing from DC
for 2 days, during which time the glass shop manager in Dearborn says
that he replaced the window with the bullet hole (from the front).
And then, after having replaced the glass, did he mention having
damaged the windshield from the inside in order to make it look
authentic?

Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
How many people were involved in the transport of the vehicle from
Dallas to Dearborn and how were they hushed up about that inconvenient
bullet hole?
The usual SS crew who flew it to Dallas and then back to DC would have
done it. Those guys follow orders and keep silent.
Too bad that the photo of the limo speeding to Parkland doesn't show
any sign of a bullet hole in the windshield. Or that the bullet hole
in the windshield wasn't observed by any of the passengers in that
vehicle.
Do they have a good photo of the care that would show a small hole in
the window? Probably not.
There is certainly no sign of a bullet hole in the windshield, so I
guess that from your perspective, it isn't a "good photo".

The "small hole" should certainly be enveloped by visible cracks,
shouldn't it? No sign of those either.
The passengers were very busy or dead.
Too busy or too dead to notice or receive injury from flying glass.
Connley, in the front, had been
shot in the back, hand, and leg. (by a "magick" bullet -- according to
the Warren Commission --
Others, not the Warren Commission, designated the bullet as a "magic"
bulet.

However, the Warren Commission which was wrong about the fatal head
shot, was correct about the single-bullet. A single bullet fired from
Oswald's gun definitely wounded both Kennedy and Connally. That isn't
a theory; it's incontrovertible fact and has been since 1964
Ms. Connley (also in the front seat) says that
their report of the shooting is way wrong. She said so again last night
on Larry King.
The Connallys always stated that Governor Connally was not hit by the
first shot, as the Warren Commission surmises. They are correct.
Oswald's first shot missed. His second winged Kennedy and Connally.
SA Hickey's accidental misfire was the third shot.

However, the Connallys never questioned the Warren Report OTHER THAN
the issue of which shot hit the governor. Apart from that, they
endorsed the Warren Report.
Your point is?
Uh, that people who are not so credible often tell stories to draw
attention to themselves and because of various clinical reasons might
actually come to believe the stories that they are telling.
So all those who saw something that disagrees with the official story
Obviously, I also disagree with the official story.
are all crazy. Good one.
If what they are saying is contrary to common sense or to the hard
evidence or if they are contradicting one another, then they either
are crazy or attention-seekers and/or fortune seekers. Probably the
last two.
If you are interested you really need to watch the History Channel
documentary, all the many hours of it. Fascinating stuff.
"Mortal Error" contains the only solution that I think is conceivable
given the facts.
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
I'm trying to give you the facts WITHOUT confusing you, but it's rough
going.
Robert, Attorney General, Kennedy did NOT start a very active legal
campaign against organized crime. Robert, Attorney General, Kennedy
WAS organized crime.
LOL. Political nonsense aside, it was in many papers during the 1960s.
The DOJ was prosecuting many crime bosses and making a lot of waves.
The Kennedy brothers took political assistance from organized crime
and were using them, at least, tacitly to make war on Castro. That
wasn't in any papers at all.
The CIA was supposedly making contact with crime bosses who also didn't like Castro, but did anything >come of it?
Obviously not, but that doesn't change the facts about what was being
attempted.
You could eat every trigger man on the grassy knoll without breaking
your fast for Lent.
Or you could look at the photos and other evidence.
And having looked at the photos and other evidence, you could then eat
every trigger man on the grassy knoll or elsewhere without breaking
your fast for Lent.
Unfortunately, there are no photos of the Secret Service follow-up
vehicle taken at the time of the head shot. If there were, we would
see a stumbling Secret Service agent and, quite possibly, the flash of
the AR-15 that he was holding.
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
All the expert witnesses who saw
Kennedy say he was shot from the front.
False.
That story holds as much water
as a bucket with bullet holes.
Read "Mortal Error". Or is your mind indeed made up and are you
indeed afraid of being confused by the facts?
No, it has been in the public domain since about 1977 or so.
For forty years, the government has engaged in a relatively benign
conspiracy to cover up to protect the reputation of the Secret
Service.
For forty years the Government covered up the coup d'tat that changed
the American Government and put Johnson into office.
For forty years, the government has engaged in a relatively benign -
and I should have added "wrong-headed" - conspiracy to cover up to
protect the reputation of the Secret Service.
Most of the people believe that a conspiracy was involved.
There WAS and IS a conspiracy - a conspiracy after-the-fact to protect
the Secret Service from embarrassment and other possible
recriminations.
But I don't care what "most people" think. If "most people" read the
astrology section of the newspaper (and large numbers do), would you
believe in astrology?
Your point being?
That what "most people" think about an issue of fact is a poor
substitute for empirical reasoning.
The people have not believed their government since 1963. They won't
believe the government until it comes clean and stops lying to the
people. Johnson is dead, its time to fess up.
I agree. The government should acknowledge the accident.

I believe that the Secret Service records of the incident have never
been made public, even though they must have done their own internal
investigation.

And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
You are not
required to. The piece on the History Channel is very interesting. If
it comes on again watch it.
I think that I have already learned as much about it as I need to
know.
"My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Funny how the SS agents were behind the limo, but Kennedy was shot from
the front through the windshield.
No bullet holes in the windshield; no proof of a frontal entry wound.
LOL. The proof is mountainous. Dozens of doctors including all the
doctors who looked at Kennedy in the Dallas hospital,
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions that they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
forensic
pathologists, herds of witnesses including reporters and camera
operators.
Autopsy photos confirmed that all entry wounds came from the rear.
That's why so many conspiracy theorists are reduced to saying that the
photos were faked or that the corpse was altered.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
Autopsy photos confirmed that all entry wounds came from the rear.
That's from the Ramsey Clark Commission, the Rockefeller Commission,
the HSCA Committee, and God knows who else?

That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.

Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
The doctors at the Dallas Hospital all
have said that the claimed autopsy was not what they saw.
That's not what they said when Walter Cronkite interviewed them in
1988 for the 25th anniversary. I doubt that it's what they said last
night either.
The manager of the Ford glass shop who replaced the front
window with the bullet hole.
Yeah, the one who received the transfer from Dallas to Dearborn. I
got it.
Custom made car window glass is not available on your street corner.
Lots of proof.
Yes, I know; the History Channel interviewed "hundreds" of witnesses.
And don't forget; the actor Woody Harrelson ("White Man Can't Jump")
once announced that he had read a diary entry from his father, an
ex-CIA agent, which amounted to a JFK-snuff confession. What more
proof could I want?
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Sure, keep believing that fake story.
That JFK died as a result of "friendly fire".
It happens all too often in military encounters, and he was the
commander-in-chief.
For 40 years its been apparent that Johnson was involved in or leader of
the coup d'tat.
Apparent to whom? Is it also "apparent" that there was also an alien
crash landing at Roswell?
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Many people who were witness have died of unusual circumstances, car
crashes without witnesses, sudden diseases, etc.
Oh yeah, the mysteriously dying witnesses. They don't include Marina
Oswald, who must know as much as anyone does and who is still very
much alive.
Yes, she got half an hour on the History Channel special too, along with
Oswald mistress
And somehow these people survived the conspiratorial onslaught while
other more tangential witnesses were done away with?
and several others who report on Oswald connections with
Jack Ruby.
Yes, I know. They were homosexual lovers. A "credible eyewitness"
once claimed to have witnessed them in the middle of an encounter.
Truly, there WAS a witness out there who did make such a claim.
Still? Don't the bad guys ever die of old age?
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Bob
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***@yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have another round of applause for YOUR FRESNO GRIZZLIES!"

- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh
at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the
geldings be fruitful" - C.S.Lewis

"The history of women is the history of the worst tyranny the world has ever
known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that ever
lasts." - Oscar Wilde

"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Bob
2003-11-24 05:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I don't see how any president, having actually undermined the South
Vietnamese government, could possibly have been in a position to leave
Vietnam.
The argument that Kennedy was killed because he was "about" to
withdraw from South Vietnam has always struck me as profoundly
cynical.
Apparently there was a Presidential order in effect, according to the
History Channel. It required 1,000 troops home by year end, and all
troops out during 1964.
I think that is one of the legends of which the Stone/Prouty view of
the assassination is based. This was an option being considered; it
was NOT an order in effect.
And my question again is, why the Diem coup if we were on the verge of
leaving Vietnam?
The History Channel cites a particular Executive Order by number and
recounts its contents. One of the contentions is that Kennedy didn't
like what the CIA had been doing in Viet Nam and was ordering them to
stop.
The coup. The coup. The coup against Ngo Dinh Diem that had taken
place on November 1, 1963. The coup which had been urged by JFK and
carried out by his "enemies" in the CIA.
Having undermined South Vietnam's government, Kennedy was no more in a
position to leave South Vietnam than W is in a position to leave Iraq
after having driven out Saddam Hussein.
So tell us again how does SE Asia politics have a direct bearing on
Johnson's coup d'tat?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
He had fired the CIA Director for getting us
into the Viet Nam situation.
Dulles was fired for the Bay of Pigs, early in the Kennedy
Administration, long before November 1963. Sounds like the History
Channel needs a brush-up course on history.
Only one plane load of troops had returned
home by the time of the assassination. Johnson immediatly canceled the
order and appointed the former CIA Director to the Warren Commission,
according to the History Channel's report.
Yes, Dulles was on the Warren Commission panel.
Suppose America had ended up WINNING the Vietnam War. You wouldn't
hear any Kennedy partisan arguing that Kennedy would have cut and run.
In 1963 it wasn't much of a war. Just a few thousand "advisors" and CIA
operatives.
That is beside the point. If America had won the war in Vietnam, none
of Kennedy's partisans would be arguing TODAY that Kennedy would have
withdrawn from Vietnam.
So the argument that he would have appears, in large part, to be using
historical hindsight for self-serving purposes.
You obviously don't like Kennedy.
Truly sir, you are cognizant of much that is hidden. Very little
escapes your eagle eye.
Does that solve a murder mystery?
I don't regard this as a "murder mystery". I am virtually certain
that Secret Service Agent George Warren Hickey accidentally blew off
JFK's head while trying to return Oswald's fire.
IOW: You're mind is made up.

And for 40 years Bob has believed that Lyndon Johnson was responsible
for the murder of JFK. The only real question was who was working with
him and the details of the plot.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And in this instance, adoration of JFK clouds what you refer to as a
"murder mystery".
If the belief of starry-eyed zealots that JFK was about to leave South
Vietnam is wrong, then the motive ascribed to the supposed
conspirators must also be wrong. Capeesh?
Sir, you have failed to demonstrate that Viet Nam had anything of
significance to do with Johnson's coup d'tat.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. My memory of the Kennedy Administration, Robert Kennedy Attorney
General, was that the DOJ was conduction a large scale prosecution of
organized crime bosses.
The Kennedys took political assistance from organized crime in order
to win the White House. Voter irregularities in Cook County, Illinois
that helped put them in the White House was at least partially due to
mob involvement with the party machine.
The mob has always supported Democrats. Robert Kennedy was leading a
DOJ war agaisnt organized crime. That's not conjecture.
He was prosecuting certain underworld elements. However, the Kennedys
received political and logistical assistance from the mob. That isn't
conjecture either.
It's certainly conceivable that the mob regarded this as a "double
cross" and contemplated retaliation against the Kennedys.
If they did so, it is NOT because the Kennedys were paragons of virtue
but because they reneged on the deal.
The mob does not kill outsiders or honest politicians, only those who
have crossed the line. To refuse to acknowledge this is to allow
one's adoration of JFK to cloud the "murder mystery".
The "mob" is not heterogeneous. There are many factions who often kill
each other. If Kennedy was working with or supported by one faction
some other faction may have been that much more likely to want him
eliminated.

The History Channel alleges that some Italian branch (formerly connected
in Havana before Castro) supplied the hired guns. You pay your money,
we kill who you say. Simple business deal.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
It is all irrelevant anyway. Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman
who fired at JFK with intent to kill. George Warren Hickey fired at
JFK by accident. Neither one is or was a mobster.
Well, several witnesses say Oswald had been associated with Ruby who was
a mob connected person -- formerly with Capone in the 20s.

Evidence of Oswald is very controversial, or should we say suspect.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Johnson paid a million dollars to Bobby Baker to shut him up; he
didn't need to become President to make a payoff to him.
The investigation was being conducted by the Senate and not by the
Kennedy DOJ.
The investigation was NOT shut down in the immediate aftermath of the
assassination.
Yea, right. All the Texas corruption was thoroughly investigated and
Johnson's connections prosecuted. Sure.
I didn't say so. I said that Bobby Baker took a million dollars from
LBJ and went to jail and shut up until after Johnson died and he was
released from jail.
I said that the investigation was not shut down in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination. It wasn't.
The History Channel interviewed one of Johnson's lawyers who handled
some of the payoffs and swears that Johnson was involved up to his eyelids.
In payola, graft, and political razzle-dazzle? Yes, he was. That
isn't a secret.
In the JFK homicide? No.
Johnson's lawyer says otherwise. I guess you know more than he.
Johnson's lawyer says that Johnson was absolutely involved in the
assassination.
I guess that I do. I don't believe for one moment that any reputable
and sane attorney claims personal knowledge that LBJ killed JFK.
You need to watch the History Channel's piece. Several interviews are
supposedly coming forward for the first time now that they feel less
likely to get eliminated for talking on camera.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
All of them witnesses, some more trained in what they say. For exempt
the soldier who had just returned from infantry training was credible to
recognize the sound of a bullet whizzing past his ear.
Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. Earwitness evidence is not reliable
as a means of establishing the origin of the shots.
In addition to your soldier, Mary Elizabeth Woodward is another
witness who stood near the grassy knoll and described a "horrible
ear'shattering noise" coming from behind her and to the right.
Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber, and she was mistaken as to the
location of the shot.
Yep, everybody who disagreed with the official story was "mistaken."
How convenient.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
However, she accurately described the sound
that would have been made by the Secret Service agent's AR-15 - which
makes a louder and sharper report than that which would have been made
by a rifle likely to be used by a professional sniper.
The ARmaLite 15 design was sold to Colt in 1959 but was not adopted by
the military as the M-16 until some years later due to several problems
with the original designs. During the first part of the Viet Nam war US
troops were still using older M-14 rifles. "The M16 was first issued to
American Soldiers in Vietnam in 1968" from
http://star-spangled.narod.ru/60_nam_m16.htm. Even then it was quite
controversial for some years.

Bob would be quite surprised if the Secret Service was using AR-15s in
1963, five years before its adoption by the US military. It would be
even more strange if Kennedy was accidentally killed with a rifle that
would not be in regular production or government use for another 5
years. That is only one of the gaping holes in that explanation.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The news
r> reporter who's story got changed by the SS before it got printed.
The Secret Service couldn't even edit itself, let alone anyone else.
The statements made by the Secret Service agents are very much part of
the proof that one of them fired at JFK by accident.
The
nurses from the hospital who stood and talked to each other about the
bullet hole in the car window.
Really? Nurses from the hospital examined the vehicle and not the
patient?
Big hospital, lots of nurses.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Iin point of fact, there were splintered glass fragments on the INSIDE
of the windshield which a hasty witness might refer to as "bullet
holes". But no bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine is
visible in the photographs of the ride to Parkland.
But, the blast of brains out the back of Kennedy's head IS visible in
photos as his head snapped backward after being hit from the front.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The head doctor in the trauma unit who
describes an entry bullet wound in the forehead and exit wound taking
20% of the brain out the back.
....probably does not exist.
Or maybe someone in the presidential limousine performed some sort of
mercy killing on the way to Parkland.
Oh, they were "mistaken" because their story doesn't fit the official
explanation. Sure.


Well Bob is only reporting on a documentary from the History Channel.
If you don't want to view it yourself that's your business.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Because, you see, Zapruder frame 321, eight frames after the headshot
in frame 313, gives a pretty good vantage point of the back of
Kennedy's head, and it shows no exit wound.
The Mary Moorman photo was taken from the vantage of the left rear of
the presidential vehicle. Conspiracy theorists have tried to use it
to prove the existence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. But oops -
whatever they gain from the knoll - they lose from the victim.
Because the Moorman photo has an even better vantage point of the back
of Kennedy's head than does the Zapruder film. No exit wound.
The expert forensic pathologist with 30
years of experience.
..., if he exists, must not have been on any of the panels who
examined the autopsy photos and concluded that all wounds were caused
from the rear.
The fingerprint expert with 35 years of
experience.
Fingerprint expert? Conspiracy theorists don't seem to be impressed
with fingerprint evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle.
These are credible witnesses to parts of the crime.
Er - "expert" witnesses are not the same as percipient witnesses to
the crime.
Some of the witnesses may be less credible, such as the woman who claims
to have been the mistress of Lee H. Oswald. Even a less credible
witness may be telling the truth sometimes.
If a less credible witness might be telling the truth, then, by the
same token, a "credible" witness might not be.
One was a
uniformed army man who was home on leave who dropped to the ground when
the bullet wizzed past his ear.
What does that prove? Where was he standing? When did he drop?
Standing in front of the picket fence on the knoll. He's in the
background of the photo taken from across the street. He dropped when
the bullet fired from the knoll came close to his head. Since he had
j> just returned from army live fire combat training he can be
expected to
have accurately recognized the sound and feel of a bullet passing close
by.
But not its origin. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber.
It proves that Oswald was not the only shooter, if he fired at all.
That is correct. Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter who fired at
the President with intent to kill. The soldier heard George Warren
Hickey's AR-15 go off from the follow-up Secret Service vehicle -
except that Hickey fired by accident and struck JFK in the head. It
was a "mortal error".
The
evidence agaisnt Oswald seems to be very thin at best.
The evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is voluminous. It's
mountainous.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a true-believing Marxist.
That is what the Warren Report says. Others say differently.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The conspiracy
industry is dominated by the political Left, and the political Left
perceives an interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
That's why the mountain of evidence against Oswald is disdained or
ignored.
If Oswald had been a right-winger, the conspiracy industry probably
would not have been created, and 90% of what has been written about
the JFK homicide never would have been written. If Oswald had been a
right-winger, belief in Oswald's guilt would have become a sacrament
for the Left.
The woman claiming to have been his mistress claims that he was a
right-wing anti-comunist who was working for CIA secret operations to
infiltrate and eliminate Castro. She claims to have been working on a
project to create infectious cancer for that purpose. She says he was a
counter-spy who was trying to stop the killing that was being done by
some others in his CIA contacts.

I guess we'll never really know.

They didn't mention the connection, but several of the key witnessed
died suddenly of rapid onset virulent cancer. Ruby, for example.

The official reports all ignore the Oswald/Ruby connection.

And then of course the bullets from the police officer's body that
"Oswald killed" don't match his gun.

And the only "unknown" fingerprint police lifted from the window area in
the book depository matches one of LBJ's associates, not Oswald. Of
course the FBI ignores that too.

And witnesses place Oswald in the lunchroom before and after the shooting.

So he presumably ran up 4 flights of stairs at exactly the right moment,
did some extraordinarily accurate long distance moving target shooting
with an old rusty rifle with a scope out of line, then ran back down
stairs to the lunchroom (rather than leaving the building to escape) to
be found there when the police arrived.

Since he's an employee police don't arrest him in the lunchroom. Then he
walks home, gets his pistol. Then Oswald walks rapidly down the street
about a mile where he shoots a policeman with bullets not matching his
gun. Somehow the police get his description from an unknown source after
letting him go the first time with the other employees. He's then
arrested in a movie theater a while later.

There is a BIG part of that story that just doesn't add up.

Then there is the Jack Ruby shooting of Oswald. The police witnesses
swear that he didn't come in by public entrances. Police are trained
observers and credible witnesses. Again they are written off as
"mistaken." Ruby was apparently let through City Hall into the garage
in by persons unknown.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Someone across the street got a photo
of him in uniform near a man shooting at Kennedy.
What do you mean that the uniformed witness was "near a man shooting
at Kennedy"? Isn't your focus just a little off?
The soldier was standing on the knoll in front of the picket fence when
someone behind him fired a shot. From that angle the bullet would have
hit Kennedy in the front.
Never mind the man in uniform. Where's the photo of the "man shooting
at Kennedy"?
Standing behind the army guy. The FBI has the film but the History
Channel used a copy and some enhancement techniques to make the
background more visible.
Considering that the so-called History Channel couldn't even use a
reference book to find that Allen Dulles was discharged from the CIA
in 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, I have no confidence in their
"enhancement" techniques.
The area around the grassy knoll was occupied by a large number of
bystanders. A sniper would have been taking a tremendous risk of
being seen.
And several people saw him, but they were "mistaken," according to you
and official reports.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And Kennedy received no frontal wounds.
Yep, that's the official coverup story.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
There was a "man shooting at Kennedy" near a bystanding wi ness in
uniform? Are you sure the "man shooting at Kennedy" didn't also
present his driver's license to the nearest cop and turn himself in?
Yep.
Why didn't he? If he was going to fire at the President in the
presence of witnesses anyway, why didn't he turn himself in?
The man behind the fence had a police uniform. His accomplice had a
railroad uniform and tool box.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Several dozen witnesses reported seeing and hearing shots coming
from the grassy knoll. The Warren commission didn't interview any of
them.
The Warren Commission inquiry was flawed in many ways - especially in
light of its desire to protect the Secret Service from exposure at the
expense of the truth.
Especially in light of the President's orders to suppress evidence and
blame Oswald no matter what.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
However, there were no shots fired from the grassy knoll. So it's a
moot point.
Sure, and the enhanced photo of a man with a rifle flash is a fake. And
the army man who heard the bullet whizz past his ear was "mistaken."
And the other witnesses were in error. Yea, right.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The people on the History Channel piece tracked down the gunman, who he
was, who hired him, who paid him and where, how he got to the US, how he
left, where he finally died, etc. He was supposedly an international
crime hit man hired through some Italian mob connections. See the video.
Uh, are you sure that I should believe the History Channel and its
"confessed" gunman?
Believe what you like.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Or should I believe Hugh McDonald, another crime investigator, who
tracked down a DIFFERENT international hitman who called himself
"Saul" who "confessed" to have fired the fatal shot - not from the
grassy knoll ("Saul" says no gunmen were stationed there)- but from
BEHIND the motorcade in the Dallas County Records Building?
There were supposed to be 3 gunmen and 4 shots fired.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Or should I believe a tabloid story that I once read, in which they
interviewed someone who "confessed" to having fired at JFK from an
underground sewer?
Or should I believe any of the other "confessions" that have surfaced
or that might have surfaced over the years?
Believe what you like. If everyone believes the official story the
government can keep their coverup secret forever. Since that time many
people have not trusted the government, and they are the villains in
numerous films.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Another reliable
witness (from several DEA cases) says he handled the payoff for the
gunmen in the photo. The History Channel goes on for hours and hours
with long interviews of many people involved. Even the glass shop
manager of the Ford plant in Michigan who had to replace the windshield
glass on the limo to hide the bullet hole from the front testifies in
writing.
Really? Was this supposed glass shop manager one of the "very
credible witnesses" or one of the not-so-credible witnesses? After
all, you said that only "some" of the witnesses were very credible.
They sent the limo all the way from Dallas to Dearborn to hide a
bullet hole, did they? No local glass shop in Dallas or on the route
from Dallas to Dearborn was able to do the job, eh? They had to use
this particular glass shop in Dearborn because it specialized in
assassination conspiracies?
You can't get glass for custom made limo at your neighborhood 7-11, or
at least not at mine. You have to go to where they make custom limo
glass. The SS flies the cars around all the time. That part was no big
problem. For them its probably as easy as going to the local glass shop.
The car went back to DC for several days, and then was missing from DC
for 2 days, during which time the glass shop manager in Dearborn says
that he replaced the window with the bullet hole (from the front).
And then, after having replaced the glass, did he mention having
damaged the windshield from the inside in order to make it look
authentic?
Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
How many people were involved in the transport of the vehicle from
Dallas to Dearborn and how were they hushed up about that inconvenient
bullet hole?
The usual SS crew who flew it to Dallas and then back to DC would have
done it. Those guys follow orders and keep silent.
Too bad that the photo of the limo speeding to Parkland doesn't show
any sign of a bullet hole in the windshield. Or that the bullet hole
in the windshield wasn't observed by any of the passengers in that
vehicle.
Do they have a good photo of the care that would show a small hole in
the window? Probably not.
There is certainly no sign of a bullet hole in the windshield, so I
guess that from your perspective, it isn't a "good photo".
The "small hole" should certainly be enveloped by visible cracks,
shouldn't it? No sign of those either.
Uh, no. A high speed bullet would likely cause a small hole in the
front and shards in the back, but cracks, if any, are not required.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The passengers were very busy or dead.
Too busy or too dead to notice or receive injury from flying glass.
Connley was shot, doubled over from the impact. His wife was looking at
him and ducking.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Connley, in the front, had been
shot in the back, hand, and leg. (by a "magick" bullet -- according to
the Warren Commission --
Others, not the Warren Commission, designated the bullet as a "magic"
bulet.
However, the Warren Commission which was wrong about the fatal head
shot, was correct about the single-bullet. A single bullet fired from
Oswald's gun definitely wounded both Kennedy and Connally. That isn't
a theory; it's incontrovertible fact and has been since 1964
Ms. Connley (also in the front seat) says that
their report of the shooting is way wrong. She said so again last night
The Connallys always stated that Governor Connally was not hit by the
first shot, as the Warren Commission surmises. They are correct.
Oswald's first shot missed. His second winged Kennedy and Connally.
SA Hickey's accidental misfire was the third shot.
With an AR-15 that wouldn't be put into production until 5 years later.
Sure. You betcha'
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
However, the Connallys never questioned the Warren Report OTHER THAN
the issue of which shot hit the governor. Apart from that, they
endorsed the Warren Report.
Right. And the bullet that "magically" fell out of his leg onto the
table at the hospital where a FBI man found it doesn't count.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your point is?
Uh, that people who are not so credible often tell stories to draw
attention to themselves and because of various clinical reasons might
actually come to believe the stories that they are telling.
So all those who saw something that disagrees with the official story
Obviously, I also disagree with the official story.
Yep, but you have some little second story which excuses the coverup.
Let's call it coverup #2.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
are all crazy. Good one.
If what they are saying is contrary to common sense or to the hard
evidence or if they are contradicting one another, then they either
are crazy or attention-seekers and/or fortune seekers. Probably the
last two.
Yep, everyone who's saw something contrary to the official stories is
"mistaken" or "attention seeking" (lying) or greedy. Sure you betcha'
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
If you are interested you really need to watch the History Channel
documentary, all the many hours of it. Fascinating stuff.
"Mortal Error" contains the only solution that I think is conceivable
given the facts.
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
I'm trying to give you the facts WITHOUT confusing you, but it's rough
going.
Yep, like the gun that wasn't in production for another 5 years. The SS
just bought a bunch of experimental, still in development, rifles to use
in important security work.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. Political nonsense aside, it was in many papers during the 1960s.
The DOJ was prosecuting many crime bosses and making a lot of waves.
The Kennedy brothers took political assistance from organized crime
and were using them, at least, tacitly to make war on Castro. That
wasn't in any papers at all.
The CIA was supposedly making contact with crime bosses who also didn't like Castro, but did anything >come of it?
Obviously not, but that doesn't change the facts about what was being
attempted.
Yes, some witnesses say that Oswald was working on a plan to assassinate
Castro with bio-agents (rapid cancers). That is one witness who may not
be as credible, not becasue she's lying but because she was young and in
love at the time. The cancer bio-agents may have been for somebody
other than the CIA.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And having looked at the photos and other evidence, you could then eat
every trigger man on the grassy knoll or elsewhere without breaking
your fast for Lent.
Unfortunately, there are no photos of the Secret Service follow-up
vehicle taken at the time of the head shot. If there were, we would
see a stumbling Secret Service agent and, quite possibly, the flash of
the AR-15 that he was holding.
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
Sure, you betcha'
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
All the expert witnesses who saw
Kennedy say he was shot from the front.
False.
LOL. Just "mistaken" or testimony ignored.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That story holds as much water
as a bucket with bullet holes.
Read "Mortal Error". Or is your mind indeed made up and are you
indeed afraid of being confused by the facts?
Maybe I will. But it doesn't sound like it accounts for much of the
evidence and really continues the denial of the Warren Report.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Most of the people believe that a conspiracy was involved.
There WAS and IS a conspiracy - a conspiracy after-the-fact to protect
the Secret Service from embarrassment and other possible
recriminations.
But I don't care what "most people" think. If "most people" read the
astrology section of the newspaper (and large numbers do), would you
believe in astrology?
Your point being?
That what "most people" think about an issue of fact is a poor
substitute for empirical reasoning.
Yes, and the government coverup of evidence is rampant in this case. In
this case most of the people want the real story.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The people have not believed their government since 1963. They won't
believe the government until it comes clean and stops lying to the
people. Johnson is dead, its time to fess up.
I agree. The government should acknowledge the accident.
I believe that the Secret Service records of the incident have never
been made public, even though they must have done their own internal
investigation.
And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
Interesting that the National Archives lost the autopsy samples
including the brain with the big hole at the back, the FBI accidentally
shredded and lost much of the evidence so that it wasn't available to
the Congressional committee investigation some years later. I think
you've just found a second layer of coverup.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You are not
required to. The piece on the History Channel is very interesting. If
it comes on again watch it.
I think that I have already learned as much about it as I need to
know.
"My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Yes. I'm difficult to confuse.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions that they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
LOL. You are either very gullible or deliberately trying to be misled.

Doctors would have turned him over, especially if he had been shot from
behind, to find wounds. No doctor or team of doctors would not look
for wounds, especially if he's supposed to have been shot from the back.
That "didn't look at his back" story is another stupid piece that makes
no sense. An obvious lie.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
forensic
pathologists, herds of witnesses including reporters and camera
operators.
Autopsy photos confirmed that all entry wounds came from the rear.
That's why so many conspiracy theorists are reduced to saying that the
photos were faked or that the corpse was altered.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
Autopsy photos confirmed that all entry wounds came from the rear.
That's from the Ramsey Clark Commission, the Rockefeller Commission,
the HSCA Committee, and God knows who else?
That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
Yes, the people who saw the body almost all say that the bullet came
from the front. The G men who saw only the photos much later see only
what was in the photos. The National Archives "lost" the brain.

Funny how they deliberately prevented and adequate or even haphazard
credible autopsy from being performed.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.
Nobody with autopsy experience or training performed an autopsy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
LOL. YOUR mind is made up. You keep insisting that the official story
is the truth.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The doctors at the Dallas Hospital all
have said that the claimed autopsy was not what they saw.
That's not what they said when Walter Cronkite interviewed them in
1988 for the 25th anniversary. I doubt that it's what they said last
night either.
The manager of the Ford glass shop who replaced the front
window with the bullet hole.
Yeah, the one who received the transfer from Dallas to Dearborn. I
got it.
Custom made car window glass is not available on your street corner.
Lots of proof.
Yes, I know; the History Channel interviewed "hundreds" of witnesses.
And don't forget; the actor Woody Harrelson ("White Man Can't Jump")
once announced that he had read a diary entry from his father, an
ex-CIA agent, which amounted to a JFK-snuff confession. What more
proof could I want?
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Yep, sweep it all under the rug. Use backup story #2.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Sure, keep believing that fake story.
That JFK died as a result of "friendly fire".
It happens all too often in military encounters, and he was the
commander-in-chief.
For 40 years its been apparent that Johnson was involved in or leader of
the coup d'tat.
Apparent to whom? Is it also "apparent" that there was also an alien
crash landing at Roswell?
Yes, you sure believe those fake stories. An accidental AR-15 shot in
1963.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Yes, and often tabloids publish truth when nobody else will. The Rush
Limbagh drug thing is a recent example.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Many people who were witness have died of unusual circumstances, car
crashes without witnesses, sudden diseases, etc.
Oh yeah, the mysteriously dying witnesses. They don't include Marina
Oswald, who must know as much as anyone does and who is still very
much alive.
Yes, she got half an hour on the History Channel special too, along with
Oswald mistress
And somehow these people survived the conspiratorial onslaught while
other more tangential witnesses were done away with?
and several others who report on Oswald connections with
Jack Ruby.
Yes, I know. They were homosexual lovers. A "credible eyewitness"
once claimed to have witnessed them in the middle of an encounter.
Truly, there WAS a witness out there who did make such a claim.
Still? Don't the bad guys ever die of old age?
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?
You would think so, but agencies like the FBI don't want their
reputation to be tarnished by being known to have been involved in a
coup d'tat.

Bob
Grizzlie Antagonist
2003-11-24 08:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I don't see how any president, having actually undermined the South
Vietnamese government, could possibly have been in a position to leave
Vietnam.
The argument that Kennedy was killed because he was "about" to
withdraw from South Vietnam has always struck me as profoundly
cynical.
Apparently there was a Presidential order in effect, according to the
History Channel. It required 1,000 troops home by year end, and all
troops out during 1964.
I think that is one of the legends of which the Stone/Prouty view of
the assassination is based. This was an option being considered; it
was NOT an order in effect.
And my question again is, why the Diem coup if we were on the verge of
leaving Vietnam?
The History Channel cites a particular Executive Order by number and
recounts its contents. One of the contentions is that Kennedy didn't
like what the CIA had been doing in Viet Nam and was ordering them to
stop.
The coup. The coup. The coup against Ngo Dinh Diem that had taken
place on November 1, 1963. The coup which had been urged by JFK and
carried out by his "enemies" in the CIA.
Having undermined South Vietnam's government, Kennedy was no more in a
position to leave South Vietnam than W is in a position to leave Iraq
after having driven out Saddam Hussein.
So tell us again how does SE Asia politics have a direct bearing on
Johnson's coup d'tat?
The question is really not worthy of a response since it starts with
the conclusion and works backward.

However, to do my best to answer it, you claimed earlier that JFK's
supposed intention to withdraw from Vietnam was the motive or one of
the motives for the supposed coup that led to his death.

Maybe you're backing away from that contention without admitting it.

However, by alluding to a historical incident that casts tremendous
doubt on the notion that JFK was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, I
am refuting the notion that Vietnam was a motive for the supposed
coup.

Capeesh?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
He had fired the CIA Director for getting us
into the Viet Nam situation.
Dulles was fired for the Bay of Pigs, early in the Kennedy
Administration, long before November 1963. Sounds like the History
Channel needs a brush-up course on history.
Only one plane load of troops had returned
home by the time of the assassination. Johnson immediatly canceled the
order and appointed the former CIA Director to the Warren Commission,
according to the History Channel's report.
Yes, Dulles was on the Warren Commission panel.
Suppose America had ended up WINNING the Vietnam War. You wouldn't
hear any Kennedy partisan arguing that Kennedy would have cut and run.
In 1963 it wasn't much of a war. Just a few thousand "advisors" and CIA
operatives.
That is beside the point. If America had won the war in Vietnam, none
of Kennedy's partisans would be arguing TODAY that Kennedy would have
withdrawn from Vietnam.
So the argument that he would have appears, in large part, to be using
historical hindsight for self-serving purposes.
You obviously don't like Kennedy.
Truly sir, you are cognizant of much that is hidden. Very little
escapes your eagle eye.
Does that solve a murder mystery?
I don't regard this as a "murder mystery". I am virtually certain
that Secret Service Agent George Warren Hickey accidentally blew off
JFK's head while trying to return Oswald's fire.
IOW: You're mind is made up.
And for 40 years Bob has believed that Lyndon Johnson was responsible
for the murder of JFK. The only real question was who was working with
him and the details of the plot.
It looks like Bob started with the conclusion and worked backwards.
But why is Bob referring to himself in third person? Is he descended
from royalty? Perhaps the supposed coup d'tat should have installed
Bob in the Oval Office.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And in this instance, adoration of JFK clouds what you refer to as a
"murder mystery".
If the belief of starry-eyed zealots that JFK was about to leave South
Vietnam is wrong, then the motive ascribed to the supposed
conspirators must also be wrong. Capeesh?
Sir, you have failed to demonstrate that Viet Nam had anything of
significance to do with Johnson's coup d'tat.
Actually, it was YOUR contention and YOU are the one who has failed to
demonstrate even that there WAS a coup d'tat, let alone that Vietnam
had anything to do with it.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. My memory of the Kennedy Administration, Robert Kennedy Attorney
General, was that the DOJ was conduction a large scale prosecution of
organized crime bosses.
The Kennedys took political assistance from organized crime in order
to win the White House. Voter irregularities in Cook County, Illinois
that helped put them in the White House was at least partially due to
mob involvement with the party machine.
The mob has always supported Democrats. Robert Kennedy was leading a
DOJ war agaisnt organized crime. That's not conjecture.
He was prosecuting certain underworld elements. However, the Kennedys
received political and logistical assistance from the mob. That isn't
conjecture either.
It's certainly conceivable that the mob regarded this as a "double
cross" and contemplated retaliation against the Kennedys.
If they did so, it is NOT because the Kennedys were paragons of virtue
but because they reneged on the deal.
The mob does not kill outsiders or honest politicians, only those who
have crossed the line. To refuse to acknowledge this is to allow
one's adoration of JFK to cloud the "murder mystery".
The "mob" is not heterogeneous. There are many factions who often kill
each other. If Kennedy was working with or supported by one faction
some other faction may have been that much more likely to want him
eliminated.
I agree. But to continue...
Post by Bob
The History Channel alleges that some Italian branch (formerly connected
in Havana before Castro) supplied the hired guns. You pay your money,
we kill who you say. Simple business deal.
The History Channel does not even claim to have solved the so-called
"murder mystery". They say that this was a "theory".

By the way, the Johnson people, including Lady Bird, heatedly deny the
History Channel scenario, and their word is certainly no worse than
the word of LBJ's accusers.

It is legally impossible to libel the dead, but they are apparently
considering some sort of emotional distress lawsuit on Lady Bird's
behalf.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
It is all irrelevant anyway. Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman
who fired at JFK with intent to kill. George Warren Hickey fired at
JFK by accident. Neither one is or was a mobster.
Well, several witnesses say Oswald had been associated with Ruby
Yes, I know. They were homosexual lovers - right?
Post by Bob
who was
a mob connected person -- formerly with Capone in the 20s.
Well, considering that Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939, his
connection with Capone seems quite tenuous.
Post by Bob
Evidence of Oswald is very controversial, or should we say suspect.
Evidence that he was assisted by a conspiracy? Evidence that he knew
Ruby? Evidence that he was affiliated with the mob? Yes, all very
suspect.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Johnson paid a million dollars to Bobby Baker to shut him up; he
didn't need to become President to make a payoff to him.
The investigation was being conducted by the Senate and not by the
Kennedy DOJ.
The investigation was NOT shut down in the immediate aftermath of the
assassination.
Yea, right. All the Texas corruption was thoroughly investigated and
Johnson's connections prosecuted. Sure.
I didn't say so. I said that Bobby Baker took a million dollars from
LBJ and went to jail and shut up until after Johnson died and he was
released from jail.
I said that the investigation was not shut down in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination. It wasn't.
The History Channel interviewed one of Johnson's lawyers who handled
some of the payoffs and swears that Johnson was involved up to his eyelids.
In payola, graft, and political razzle-dazzle? Yes, he was. That
isn't a secret.
In the JFK homicide? No.
Johnson's lawyer says otherwise. I guess you know more than he.
Johnson's lawyer says that Johnson was absolutely involved in the
assassination.
I guess that I do. I don't believe for one moment that any reputable
and sane attorney claims personal knowledge that LBJ killed JFK.
You need to watch the History Channel's piece. Several interviews are
supposedly coming forward for the first time now that they feel less
likely to get eliminated for talking on camera.
LBJ died in 1973. Why would it take 30 years beyond THAT for this to
unravel?

I think that several interviews are supposedly coming forward for the
first time because after 40 years, there is less chance of being
charged with libel.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
All of them witnesses, some more trained in what they say. For exempt
the soldier who had just returned from infantry training was credible to
recognize the sound of a bullet whizzing past his ear.
Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. Earwitness evidence is not reliable
as a means of establishing the origin of the shots.
In addition to your soldier, Mary Elizabeth Woodward is another
witness who stood near the grassy knoll and described a "horrible
ear'shattering noise" coming from behind her and to the right.
Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber, and she was mistaken as to the
location of the shot.
Yep, everybody who disagreed with the official story was "mistaken."
Hardly, since the official story itself is not completely accurate.
Post by Bob
How convenient.
Your contention that all of the evidence supporting what you call the
"official version" was manufactured is considerably more suspect.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
However, she accurately described the sound
that would have been made by the Secret Service agent's AR-15 - which
makes a louder and sharper report than that which would have been made
by a rifle likely to be used by a professional sniper.
The ARmaLite 15 design was sold to Colt in 1959 but was not adopted by
the military as the M-16 until some years later due to several problems
with the original designs. During the first part of the Viet Nam war US
troops were still using older M-14 rifles. "The M16 was first issued to
American Soldiers in Vietnam in 1968" from
http://star-spangled.narod.ru/60_nam_m16.htm. Even then it was quite
controversial for some years.
Bob would be quite surprised if the Secret Service was using AR-15s in
1963, five years before its adoption by the US military. It would be
even more strange if Kennedy was accidentally killed with a rifle that
would not be in regular production or government use for another 5
years. That is only one of the gaping holes in that explanation.
Bob should read the testimony of the Secret Service agents in the
Warren Commission Report so that he doesn't wind up with his foot
firmly planted in his mouth again.

There are several references in their written and verbal testimony
before the Warren Commission to the AR-15 in the follow-up vehicle -
which gun Bob says, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist in
1963.

Grizzlie Antagonist doesn't know why Bob thinks that the Secret
Service would need to wait until the U.S. Army adopted the AR-15
before utilizing the AR-15 for its own purposes.

And indeed, Grizzlie Antagonist believes that the issue is moot in
light of the fact that there are a number of references to the AR-15's
presence in the follow-up vehicle in the testimony.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The news
r> reporter who's story got changed by the SS before it got printed.
The Secret Service couldn't even edit itself, let alone anyone else.
The statements made by the Secret Service agents are very much part of
the proof that one of them fired at JFK by accident.
The
nurses from the hospital who stood and talked to each other about the
bullet hole in the car window.
Really? Nurses from the hospital examined the vehicle and not the
patient?
Big hospital, lots of nurses.
Training themselves to be auto mechanics no doubt, if they are looking
at the presidential vehicle and not at the wounded president.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Iin point of fact, there were splintered glass fragments on the INSIDE
of the windshield which a hasty witness might refer to as "bullet
holes". But no bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine is
visible in the photographs of the ride to Parkland.
But, the blast of brains out the back of Kennedy's head IS visible in
photos as his head snapped backward after being hit from the front.
The blast of brains is certainly visible - but not out the BACK of
Kennedy's head. There are no wounds visible in the back of his head
in either the Zapruder film or the Moorman photo.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The head doctor in the trauma unit who
describes an entry bullet wound in the forehead and exit wound taking
20% of the brain out the back.
....probably does not exist.
Or maybe someone in the presidential limousine performed some sort of
mercy killing on the way to Parkland.
Oh, they were "mistaken" because their story doesn't fit the official
explanation. Sure.
I question the identity and/or the memory and/or the motives of this
so-called "head doctor in the trauma unit"

There are no wounds in the back of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film
or in the Moorman photo. Therefore, he could not have received a
wound in the back of the head in Dealey Plaza.

Like I said, maybe someone in the presidential limousine shot him on
the way to Parkland. If that didn't happen, it is obviously
impossible that anyone at the hospital could have observed an exit
wound in the back of the head.
Post by Bob
Well Bob is only reporting on a documentary from the History Channel.
If you don't want to view it yourself that's your business.
I am only reporting on a very well-written book by St. Martin's Press
that certain parties have gone to a lot of trouble to suppress. If
you don't want to read it yourself, that's your business.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Because, you see, Zapruder frame 321, eight frames after the headshot
in frame 313, gives a pretty good vantage point of the back of
Kennedy's head, and it shows no exit wound.
The Mary Moorman photo was taken from the vantage of the left rear of
the presidential vehicle. Conspiracy theorists have tried to use it
to prove the existence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. But oops -
whatever they gain from the knoll - they lose from the victim.
Because the Moorman photo has an even better vantage point of the back
of Kennedy's head than does the Zapruder film. No exit wound.
The expert forensic pathologist with 30
years of experience.
..., if he exists, must not have been on any of the panels who
examined the autopsy photos and concluded that all wounds were caused
from the rear.
The fingerprint expert with 35 years of
experience.
Fingerprint expert? Conspiracy theorists don't seem to be impressed
with fingerprint evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle.
These are credible witnesses to parts of the crime.
Er - "expert" witnesses are not the same as percipient witnesses to
the crime.
Some of the witnesses may be less credible, such as the woman who claims
to have been the mistress of Lee H. Oswald. Even a less credible
witness may be telling the truth sometimes.
If a less credible witness might be telling the truth, then, by the
same token, a "credible" witness might not be.
One was a
uniformed army man who was home on leave who dropped to the ground when
the bullet wizzed past his ear.
What does that prove? Where was he standing? When did he drop?
Standing in front of the picket fence on the knoll. He's in the
background of the photo taken from across the street. He dropped when
the bullet fired from the knoll came close to his head. Since he had
j> just returned from army live fire combat training he can be
expected to
have accurately recognized the sound and feel of a bullet passing close
by.
But not its origin. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber.
It proves that Oswald was not the only shooter, if he fired at all.
That is correct. Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter who fired at
the President with intent to kill. The soldier heard George Warren
Hickey's AR-15 go off from the follow-up Secret Service vehicle -
except that Hickey fired by accident and struck JFK in the head. It
was a "mortal error".
The
evidence agaisnt Oswald seems to be very thin at best.
The evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is voluminous. It's
mountainous.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a true-believing Marxist.
That is what the Warren Report says. Others say differently.
The Warren Report tended to minimize Oswald's political views.
However, Oswald was clearly an outspoken Marxist.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The conspiracy
industry is dominated by the political Left, and the political Left
perceives an interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
That's why the mountain of evidence against Oswald is disdained or
ignored.
If Oswald had been a right-winger, the conspiracy industry probably
would not have been created, and 90% of what has been written about
the JFK homicide never would have been written. If Oswald had been a
right-winger, belief in Oswald's guilt would have become a sacrament
for the Left.
The woman claiming to have been his mistress
When did Oswald have time to keep a mistress on the side that no one
else, including his wife and a prying landlady, knew about?
Post by Bob
claims that he was a
right-wing anti-comunist who was working for CIA secret operations to
infiltrate and eliminate Castro.
While urging "Hands Off Cuba" to the masses..
Post by Bob
She claims to have been working on a
project to create infectious cancer for that purpose. She says he was a
counter-spy who was trying to stop the killing that was being done by
some others in his CIA contacts.
<Sigh>
Post by Bob
I guess we'll never really know.
They didn't mention the connection, but several of the key witnessed
died suddenly of rapid onset virulent cancer. Ruby, for example.
The official reports all ignore the Oswald/Ruby connection.
That's because there was none.
Post by Bob
And then of course the bullets from the police officer's body that
"Oswald killed" don't match his gun.
I believe that the bullets were mutilated beyond recognition, but the
cartridge shells found at the scene matched Oswald's gun.

Oswald was also picked out of a police lineup by a number of witnesses
to the Tippitt shooting, and his jacket was found at the scene.
Post by Bob
And the only "unknown" fingerprint police lifted from the window area in
the book depository matches one of LBJ's associates, not Oswald. Of
course the FBI ignores that too.
Really? Which LBJ associate? Who fired at JFK from the Book
Depository? Jack Valenti? Bill Moyers? Abe Fortas? Don't keep me
in suspense!
Post by Bob
And witnesses place Oswald in the lunchroom before and after the shooting.
Witnesses could place me in my living room before and after work, but
I haven't missed a day of work in quite some time.
Post by Bob
So he presumably ran up 4 flights of stairs at exactly the right moment,
I don't know why he would have had to run. I think you're just
creating a strawman.
Post by Bob
did some extraordinarily accurate long distance moving target shooting
with an old rusty rifle
Not such long distance, especially with a telescopic sight, and not so
extraordinarily accurate, since by the reckoning of Howard Donahue and
Bonar Menninger, Oswald fired two shots - hitting once and missing
once.
Post by Bob
with a scope out of line,
Compensated for by the angle at which he was firing.
Post by Bob
then ran back down
stairs to the lunchroom
Re-enactments show he easily could have made it back down to the
lunchroom - even if he had walked.
Post by Bob
(rather than leaving the building to escape)
He DID leave the building to escape.
Post by Bob
to
be found there when the police arrived.
He worked in the building; had every right to be in the building; his
mere presence in the building would not have been and was not regarded
as suspicious.

If he'd tried to leave too precipitously at a time when the building
was being sealed, that might have caused more suspicion. It was
important to be seen in a "business-as-usual" context.
Post by Bob
Since he's an employee police don't arrest him in the lunchroom. Then he
walks home, gets his pistol. Then Oswald walks rapidly down the street
about a mile where he shoots a policeman with bullets not matching his
gun.
Encased in cartridges matching his gun.
Post by Bob
Somehow the police get his description from an unknown source
Howard Brennan's description of the gunman firing from the sixth floor
of TSBD, which description somewhat resembled Oswald, had already been
given to the police and was already being broadcast and had
undoubtedly been heard by Tippitt.

I guess that the source was "unknown" only to you and the other
conspiracy theorists. Maybe it still is.
Post by Bob
after
letting him go the first time with the other employees. He's then
arrested in a movie theater a while later.
While still in possession of the gun.
Post by Bob
There is a BIG part of that story that just doesn't add up.
Well, you see - the story doesn't add up ONLY if you believe that
Oswald was innocent.

The story is certainly consistent enough to "add up" to the conclusion
that Oswald was guilty of both shootings. He behaved like a fleeing
felon with consciousness of his own guilt.

By the way, one author, I forget his name, argues persuasively that
Oswald retrieved his pistol after the Kennedy shooting with the
intention of making a second attempt on the life of General Walker and
that he was heading to Walker's home when he was stopped by Tippitt.
Post by Bob
Then there is the Jack Ruby shooting of Oswald. The police witnesses
swear that he didn't come in by public entrances. Police are trained
observers and credible witnesses.
Nonsense. Where's your conspiratorial mindset? You're supposed to
believe that the Dallas police also played a role in the grand
conspiracy.
Post by Bob
Again they are written off as
"mistaken." Ruby was apparently let through City Hall into the garage
in by persons unknown.
Even if he was, so what? He was well known to local police and would
not have been regarded as a suspicious character.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Someone across the street got a photo
of him in uniform near a man shooting at Kennedy.
What do you mean that the uniformed witness was "near a man shooting
at Kennedy"? Isn't your focus just a little off?
The soldier was standing on the knoll in front of the picket fence when
someone behind him fired a shot. From that angle the bullet would have
hit Kennedy in the front.
Never mind the man in uniform. Where's the photo of the "man shooting
at Kennedy"?
Standing behind the army guy. The FBI has the film but the History
Channel used a copy and some enhancement techniques to make the
background more visible.
Considering that the so-called History Channel couldn't even use a
reference book to find that Allen Dulles was discharged from the CIA
in 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, I have no confidence in their
"enhancement" techniques.
The area around the grassy knoll was occupied by a large number of
bystanders. A sniper would have been taking a tremendous risk of
being seen.
And several people saw him, but they were "mistaken," according to you
and official reports.
No one saw a sniper on the grassy knoll firing at the President. No
such person existed.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And Kennedy received no frontal wounds.
Yep, that's the official coverup story.
Kennedy received no entry frontal wounds or exit back wounds.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
There was a "man shooting at Kennedy" near a bystanding witness in
uniform? Are you sure the "man shooting at Kennedy" didn't also
present his driver's license to the nearest cop and turn himself in?
Yep.
Why didn't he? If he was going to fire at the President in the
presence of witnesses anyway, why didn't he turn himself in?
The man behind the fence had a police uniform. His accomplice had a
railroad uniform and tool box.
Good point. He knew that the witnesses wouldn't question a sniper
firing at the President if he was dressed in a police uniform.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Several dozen witnesses reported seeing and hearing shots coming
from the grassy knoll. The Warren commission didn't interview any of
them.
The Warren Commission inquiry was flawed in many ways - especially in
light of its desire to protect the Secret Service from exposure at the
expense of the truth.
Especially in light of the President's orders to suppress evidence and
blame Oswald no matter what.
Th Warren Commission is alleged to have started with the conclusion
and worked backwards by conspiracy theorists who started with their
own conclusions and worked backward.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
However, there were no shots fired from the grassy knoll. So it's a
moot point.
Sure, and the enhanced photo of a man with a rifle flash is a fake.
I haven't seen such a photo. Let me know if the History Channel posts
it on their website and I'll take a look at it <Yawn>.

Make sure that it's a man with a rifle flash and not the flash of a
camera before you bother me.
Post by Bob
And
the army man who heard the bullet whizz past his ear was "mistaken."
And the other witnesses were in error. Yea, right.
And the witnesses who heard shots from the Texas School Book
Depository? And the witnesses - two of them - who heard shots coming
FROM THE MOTORCADE (from the follow-up vehicle?)

Do you not claim they were mistaken?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The people on the History Channel piece tracked down the gunman, who he
was, who hired him, who paid him and where, how he got to the US, how he
left, where he finally died, etc. He was supposedly an international
crime hit man hired through some Italian mob connections. See the video.
Uh, are you sure that I should believe the History Channel and its
"confessed" gunman?
Believe what you like.
Are you throwing in the towel?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Or should I believe Hugh McDonald, another crime investigator, who
tracked down a DIFFERENT international hitman who called himself
"Saul" who "confessed" to have fired the fatal shot - not from the
grassy knoll ("Saul" says no gunmen were stationed there)- but from
BEHIND the motorcade in the Dallas County Records Building?
There were supposed to be 3 gunmen and 4 shots fired.
"Saul" told Hugh Mcdonald that he was the only gunman - well, actually
he said that Oswald was assigned to lay down fire in the street
without actually hitting anyone and without being told that the
President was a target - while he - Saul - was assigned to kill the
President.

Why should I believe the History Channel and its gunman, as opposed to
Hugh McDonald and his gunman?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Or should I believe a tabloid story that I once read, in which they
interviewed someone who "confessed" to having fired at JFK from an
underground sewer?
Or should I believe any of the other "confessions" that have surfaced
or that might have surfaced over the years?
Believe what you like. If everyone believes the official story the
government can keep their coverup secret forever.
And if every "conspiracy confession" has drastically different details
(obviously Saul's confession differs drastically in its details from
the one that you are alluding to), then we can be certain that at
least 99% of the conspiracy confessions are bullshit, right?

Because no more than one of them could ever be accurate, isn't that
correct?

Now then, if we are certain that at least 99% of the conspiracy
confessions are bullshit, how can we be certain that 100% of the
conspiracy confessions aren't bullshit? If we know that at least 99%
of the conspiracy confessions are bullshit, isn't it, in fact, quite
likely that ALL of them are bullshit?

But I am waiting with baited breath to see if retired Secret Service
Agent George Warren Hickey ever confesses - perhaps on his deathbed.
At least HIS confession would be consistent with the other facts.
Post by Bob
Since that time many
people have not trusted the government,
Eh, " the people" seem to have been quite fond of Slick Willie, in
spite of his flaws.

People in America like to talk a good "I don't trust the government"
game because it makes them feel like Jefferson democrats (small "d"),
just as long as it doesn't interfere with their receipt of the check
from SSI. Or wherever.

I really wouldn't hold out too much hope for the "people". It's a
very feminized electorate, about 53% female, in which Soccer Mom is
the queen bee - and security is valued over freedom.

I remember in 1998 listening to a political commercial being delivered
by Soccer Mom - she was complaining that her entitlement check was
being delayed while the Republicans were too busy with "this
impeachment stuff".

Obviously, the checks-and-balances enumerated in the Constitution,
which do include impeachment, had flown way over Soccer Mom's fluffy
head. All she wanted was her money.

Soccer Mom was working for Clinton and the Democrats in 1998, but she
could easily be working for W and the Republicans this year - it
doesn't matter.

My point is that even if you could find a smoking gun pointing to a
black-hearted conspiracy to use assassination to unseat a sitting
president, Soccer Mom wouldn't care, as long as no male-vs-female
issues are implicated.

Soccer Mom is not going to join you as you storm the gates of the
powerful, demanding accountability for the murdered president. Not as
long as the check arrives on time and clears the bank. Soccer Mom
won't be interested in this "coup d'tat stuff".
Post by Bob
, and they are the villains in
numerous films.
Well, let's let Hollywood screenwriters investigate political
assassinations for us then if they are so well-informed.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Another reliable
witness (from several DEA cases) says he handled the payoff for the
gunmen in the photo. The History Channel goes on for hours and hours
with long interviews of many people involved. Even the glass shop
manager of the Ford plant in Michigan who had to replace the windshield
glass on the limo to hide the bullet hole from the front testifies in
writing.
Really? Was this supposed glass shop manager one of the "very
credible witnesses" or one of the not-so-credible witnesses? After
all, you said that only "some" of the witnesses were very credible.
They sent the limo all the way from Dallas to Dearborn to hide a
bullet hole, did they? No local glass shop in Dallas or on the route
from Dallas to Dearborn was able to do the job, eh? They had to use
this particular glass shop in Dearborn because it specialized in
assassination conspiracies?
You can't get glass for custom made limo at your neighborhood 7-11, or
at least not at mine. You have to go to where they make custom limo
glass. The SS flies the cars around all the time. That part was no big
problem. For them its probably as easy as going to the local glass shop.
The car went back to DC for several days, and then was missing from DC
for 2 days, during which time the glass shop manager in Dearborn says
that he replaced the window with the bullet hole (from the front).
And then, after having replaced the glass, did he mention having
damaged the windshield from the inside in order to make it look
authentic?
Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
How many people were involved in the transport of the vehicle from
Dallas to Dearborn and how were they hushed up about that inconvenient
bullet hole?
The usual SS crew who flew it to Dallas and then back to DC would have
done it. Those guys follow orders and keep silent.
Too bad that the photo of the limo speeding to Parkland doesn't show
any sign of a bullet hole in the windshield. Or that the bullet hole
in the windshield wasn't observed by any of the passengers in that
vehicle.
Do they have a good photo of the care that would show a small hole in
the window? Probably not.
There is certainly no sign of a bullet hole in the windshield, so I
guess that from your perspective, it isn't a "good photo".
The "small hole" should certainly be enveloped by visible cracks,
shouldn't it? No sign of those either.
Uh, no. A high speed bullet would likely cause a small hole in the
front and shards in the back, but cracks, if any, are not required.
Not required? Are they possible? Are they probable? Where in the
windshield should I look for this bullethole?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The passengers were very busy or dead.
Too busy or too dead to notice or receive injury from flying glass.
Connley was shot, doubled over from the impact. His wife was looking at
him and ducking.
Yes, I grok you. No one noticed or received injury from flying glass.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Connley, in the front, had been
shot in the back, hand, and leg. (by a "magick" bullet -- according to
the Warren Commission --
Others, not the Warren Commission, designated the bullet as a "magic"
bulet.
However, the Warren Commission which was wrong about the fatal head
shot, was correct about the single-bullet. A single bullet fired from
Oswald's gun definitely wounded both Kennedy and Connally. That isn't
a theory; it's incontrovertible fact and has been since 1964
Ms. Connley (also in the front seat) says that
their report of the shooting is way wrong. She said so again last night
The Connallys always stated that Governor Connally was not hit by the
first shot, as the Warren Commission surmises. They are correct.
Oswald's first shot missed. His second winged Kennedy and Connally.
SA Hickey's accidental misfire was the third shot.
With an AR-15 that wouldn't be put into production until 5 years later.
Sure. You betcha'
MR. SPECTER: How were the agents armed at the time?
MR. HILL: All the agents were armed with their hand weapons.
MR. SPECTER: And is there any weapon in the automobile in addition to
the hand weapons?
MR. HILL: Yes. There is an AR-15, which is an automatic rifle, and a
shotgun.
MR. SPECTER: And where is the AR-15 kept?
MR. HILL: Between the two agents in the rear seat.

-SA Clint Hill, Warren Commission, Vol. II, 134

"I saw SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car
with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings."

- SA Rufus Youngblood, Warren Commission, Vol XVIII,
768
-

"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the
President’s head. I immediately hollered ‘he’s hit’ and reached for
the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey
had already picked up the AR-15."

- SA Glen Bennett, Warren Commission, Vol XVIII, 760


"Agent Hickey was handling the AR-15."

- SA William McIntyre, Warren Commission, Vol XVIII,
747


"At the end of the last report, I reached to the bottom of the car and
picked up the AR-15 rifle, cocked and loaded it, and turned to the
rear."

- SA George Warren Hickey, Warren Commission, Vol
XVIII, 761
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
However, the Connallys never questioned the Warren Report OTHER THAN
the issue of which shot hit the governor. Apart from that, they
endorsed the Warren Report.
Right. And the bullet that "magically" fell out of his leg onto the
table at the hospital where a FBI man found it doesn't count.
What are you babbling about now?

That was the single bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. What
about it?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your point is?
Uh, that people who are not so credible often tell stories to draw
attention to themselves and because of various clinical reasons might
actually come to believe the stories that they are telling.
So all those who saw something that disagrees with the official story
Obviously, I also disagree with the official story.
Yep, but you have some little second story which excuses the coverup.
Let's call it coverup #2.
I don't know who is supposed to be excusing the coverup of the
accidental hit by Agent Hickey. I think that the Secret Service
should acknowledge it and broadcast it to the world.

I think that Congress is guilty of misfeasance in failing to get at
the truth - even though the truth is rather prosaic in comparison to
what acid-headed conspiracy theorists imagine it to be.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
are all crazy. Good one.
If what they are saying is contrary to common sense or to the hard
evidence or if they are contradicting one another, then they either
are crazy or attention-seekers and/or fortune seekers. Probably the
last two.
Yep, everyone who's saw something contrary to the official stories is
"mistaken" or "attention seeking" (lying) or greedy. Sure you betcha'
And all of the photos, films, and examinations which support the
"official stories" are all faked. Sure. You betcha.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
If you are interested you really need to watch the History Channel
documentary, all the many hours of it. Fascinating stuff.
"Mortal Error" contains the only solution that I think is conceivable
given the facts.
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
I'm trying to give you the facts WITHOUT confusing you, but it's rough
going.
Yep, like the gun that wasn't in production for another 5 years.
Please. Read the testimony that I've cited above. It's going to take
you another five years to get your foot out of your mouth. I hope
that you sprinkled ketchup on your shoes.
Post by Bob
The SS
just bought a bunch of experimental, still in development, rifles to use
in important security work.
I don't know about "a bunch". I don't know if they had more than one.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. Political nonsense aside, it was in many papers during the 1960s.
The DOJ was prosecuting many crime bosses and making a lot of waves.
The Kennedy brothers took political assistance from organized crime
and were using them, at least, tacitly to make war on Castro. That
wasn't in any papers at all.
The CIA was supposedly making contact with crime bosses who also didn't like Castro, but did anything >come of it?
Obviously not, but that doesn't change the facts about what was being
attempted.
Yes, some witnesses say that Oswald was working on a plan to assassinate
Castro with bio-agents (rapid cancers). That is one witness who may not
be as credible, not becasue she's lying but because she was young and in
love at the time. The cancer bio-agents may have been for somebody
other than the CIA.
This 24 year old ne'er do well with a limited educational background
and some personal issues involving his mother certainly was given some
important technical assignments by the CIA.

In point of fact, I know for a fact that the CIA puts its prospective
agents through intensive psychological scrutiny - very intensive -
before it will take them on. Oswald couldn't have passed muster. I
doubt that you or I could either.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And having looked at the photos and other evidence, you could then eat
every trigger man on the grassy knoll or elsewhere without breaking
your fast for Lent.
Unfortunately, there are no photos of the Secret Service follow-up
vehicle taken at the time of the head shot. If there were, we would
see a stumbling Secret Service agent and, quite possibly, the flash of
the AR-15 that he was holding.
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
Sure, you betcha'
I wish that I could be sure that the truth would come out. I WOULD
lay down a bet on it.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
All the expert witnesses who saw
Kennedy say he was shot from the front.
False.
LOL. Just "mistaken" or testimony ignored.
It's false. It's simply not a true statement.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That story holds as much water
as a bucket with bullet holes.
Read "Mortal Error". Or is your mind indeed made up and are you
indeed afraid of being confused by the facts?
Maybe I will. But it doesn't sound like it accounts for much of the
evidence and really continues the denial of the Warren Report.
It is the only scenario that accounts for ALL of the evidence.

It backs up the Warren Report in some respects and refutes it in
others, but that's what the evidence leads to.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Most of the people believe that a conspiracy was involved.
There WAS and IS a conspiracy - a conspiracy after-the-fact to protect
the Secret Service from embarrassment and other possible
recriminations.
But I don't care what "most people" think. If "most people" read the
astrology section of the newspaper (and large numbers do), would you
believe in astrology?
Your point being?
That what "most people" think about an issue of fact is a poor
substitute for empirical reasoning.
Yes, and the government coverup of evidence is rampant in this case. In
this case most of the people want the real story.
Soccer Mom doesn't care. If Soccer Mom had anything resembling a sex
drive, she would probably tell you that she's happy that JFK's
handsome features never grew old.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The people have not believed their government since 1963. They won't
believe the government until it comes clean and stops lying to the
people. Johnson is dead, its time to fess up.
I agree. The government should acknowledge the accident.
I believe that the Secret Service records of the incident have never
been made public, even though they must have done their own internal
investigation.
And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
Interesting that the National Archives lost the autopsy samples
including the brain with the big hole at the back,
They must have lost it pretty quickly since the photos taken of
Kennedy's head during the shooting show no such injury.
Post by Bob
the FBI accidentally
shredded and lost much of the evidence so that it wasn't available to
the Congressional committee investigation some years later. I think
you've just found a second layer of coverup.
Coverup of the Secret Service Agent's mortal error, perhaps.

Howard Donahue is confident that the composition of the metal tracings
of the bullet that struck JFK in the head would match the composition
of the AR-15 .223 round, but I think that the FBI's measurements of
those metal tracings is one of those things that were "lost". If they
were indeed "lost".
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You are not
required to. The piece on the History Channel is very interesting. If
it comes on again watch it.
I think that I have already learned as much about it as I need to
know.
"My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Yes. I'm difficult to confuse.
No, I said that it was very very difficult to AVOID confusing you.

You are EASY to confuse.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions that they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
LOL. You are either very gullible or deliberately trying to be misled.
They never turned him over.
Post by Bob
Doctors would have turned him over, especially if he had been shot from
behind, to find wounds. No doctor or team of doctors would not look
for wounds, especially if he's supposed to have been shot from the back.
That "didn't look at his back" story is another stupid piece that makes
no sense. An obvious lie.
They were trying to save his life. They were not playing detective.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
forensic
pathologists, herds of witnesses including reporters and camera
operators.
Autopsy photos confirmed that all entry wounds came from the rear.
That's why so many conspiracy theorists are reduced to saying that the
photos were faked or that the corpse was altered.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
Autopsy photos confirmed that all entry wounds came from the rear.
That's from the Ramsey Clark Commission, the Rockefeller Commission,
the HSCA Committee, and God knows who else?
That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
Yes, the people who saw the body almost all say that the bullet came
from the front.
ALL of the bullet wounds came from the front, or just the head shot?
Post by Bob
The G men who saw only the photos much later see only
what was in the photos.
The pathologists who looked at the photos and concluded that the shots
came from the rear were not "G men".
Post by Bob
The National Archives "lost" the brain.
Maybe they should have looked for JFK's brain in his dick.
Post by Bob
Funny how they deliberately prevented and adequate or even haphazard
credible autopsy from being performed.
The fact that you don't like the results of the autopsy doesn't mean
that they are not credible.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.
Nobody with autopsy experience or training performed an autopsy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
LOL. YOUR mind is made up. You keep insisting that the official story
is the truth.
No, I say that the official story is NOT the truth.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The doctors at the Dallas Hospital all
have said that the claimed autopsy was not what they saw.
That's not what they said when Walter Cronkite interviewed them in
1988 for the 25th anniversary. I doubt that it's what they said last
night either.
The manager of the Ford glass shop who replaced the front
window with the bullet hole.
Yeah, the one who received the transfer from Dallas to Dearborn. I
got it.
Custom made car window glass is not available on your street corner.
Lots of proof.
Yes, I know; the History Channel interviewed "hundreds" of witnesses.
And don't forget; the actor Woody Harrelson ("White Man Can't Jump")
once announced that he had read a diary entry from his father, an
ex-CIA agent, which amounted to a JFK-snuff confession. What more
proof could I want?
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Yep, sweep it all under the rug. Use backup story #2.
This is not a "back up" story. Donahue and Menninger have been
persecuted for bringing it to the world.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Sure, keep believing that fake story.
That JFK died as a result of "friendly fire".
It happens all too often in military encounters, and he was the
commander-in-chief.
For 40 years its been apparent that Johnson was involved in or leader of
the coup d'tat.
Apparent to whom? Is it also "apparent" that there was also an alien
crash landing at Roswell?
Yes, you sure believe those fake stories. An accidental AR-15 shot in
1963.
If the proof isn't conclusive, it's the next closest thing to
conclusive.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Yes, and often tabloids publish truth when nobody else will. The Rush
Limbagh drug thing is a recent example.
What about the monster that came out of a hole in the I-5 freeway
after the 1994 San Fernando Valley earthquake?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Many people who were witness have died of unusual circumstances, car
crashes without witnesses, sudden diseases, etc.
Oh yeah, the mysteriously dying witnesses. They don't include Marina
Oswald, who must know as much as anyone does and who is still very
much alive.
Yes, she got half an hour on the History Channel special too, along with
Oswald mistress
And somehow these people survived the conspiratorial onslaught while
other more tangential witnesses were done away with?
and several others who report on Oswald connections with
Jack Ruby.
Yes, I know. They were homosexual lovers. A "credible eyewitness"
once claimed to have witnessed them in the middle of an encounter.
Truly, there WAS a witness out there who did make such a claim.
Still? Don't the bad guys ever die of old age?
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?
You would think so, but agencies like the FBI don't want their
reputation to be tarnished by being known to have been involved in a
coup d'tat.
Bob
Make up your mind. Before you said that the witnesses were afraid to
speak while LBJ was alive because they were afraid of retaliation.

So why aren't they afraid of retaliation today from the FBI?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***@yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have another round of applause for YOUR FRESNO GRIZZLIES!"

- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh
at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the
geldings be fruitful" - C.S.Lewis

"The history of women is the history of the worst tyranny the world has ever
known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that ever
lasts." - Oscar Wilde

"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Bob
2003-11-24 16:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
This is the same glass that you claim wasn't broken in photos of the
care after the shooting. Your contradictions don't add up. First the
photos show no cracks in the glass, and then the exhibits show cracks
inside the glass.

Like most of the official story it doesn't add up.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Not required? Are they possible? Are they probable? Where in the
windshield should I look for this bullethole?
You claim both that there is no bullet hole and that its cracked from
the bullets. Make up your mind.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Right. And the bullet that "magically" fell out of his leg onto the
table at the hospital where a FBI man found it doesn't count.
What are you babbling about now?
That was the single bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. What
about it?
And it magically fell out of his leg at the hospital to be found on a
table by a G man. Sure you betcha' What a cockamamie story.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yep, everyone who's saw something contrary to the official stories is
"mistaken" or "attention seeking" (lying) or greedy. Sure you betcha'
And all of the photos, films, and examinations which support the
"official stories" are all faked. Sure. You betcha.
Lots of them are. The truth is deliberately twisted, even you admit that.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yes, some witnesses say that Oswald was working on a plan to assassinate
Castro with bio-agents (rapid cancers). That is one witness who may not
be as credible, not becasue she's lying but because she was young and in
love at the time. The cancer bio-agents may have been for somebody
other than the CIA.
This 24 year old ne'er do well with a limited educational background
and some personal issues involving his mother certainly was given some
important technical assignments by the CIA.
In point of fact, I know for a fact that the CIA puts its prospective
agents through intensive psychological scrutiny - very intensive -
before it will take them on. Oswald couldn't have passed muster. I
doubt that you or I could either.
And how many years was Oswald working as a spy for the CIA after his
military career? We will never know.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
Sure, you betcha'
I wish that I could be sure that the truth would come out. I WOULD
lay down a bet on it.
LOL. The cockamamie story about a coverup becasue some incompetent SS
agent shot the President is ludicrous. Johnson, Hoover, and Bobby would
have hanged him.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Soccer Mom doesn't care. If Soccer Mom had anything resembling a sex
drive, she would probably tell you that she's happy that JFK's
handsome features never grew old.
Go ahead. Toss in another irrelevant red herring. The official story
and backup story are full of red herrings. It diverts focus from the
coup d'tat.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
Interesting that the National Archives lost the autopsy samples
including the brain with the big hole at the back,
They must have lost it pretty quickly since the photos taken of
Kennedy's head during the shooting show no such injury.
Photos are so easily faked. They prevented credible and impartial
witnesses and denied the testimony of actual credible witnesses.
Relying on suspicious photos while the evidence was withheld from public
scrutiny and credible autopsies is tantamount to admitting that its fake.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
the FBI accidentally
shredded and lost much of the evidence so that it wasn't available to
the Congressional committee investigation some years later. I think
you've just found a second layer of coverup.
Coverup of the Secret Service Agent's mortal error, perhaps.
Howard Donahue is confident that the composition of the metal tracings
of the bullet that struck JFK in the head would match the composition
of the AR-15 .223 round, but I think that the FBI's measurements of
those metal tracings is one of those things that were "lost". If they
were indeed "lost".
And of course there is the "magick" bullet that the G man "found" on the
hospital table after it "fell out" of Connley's leg.

The coverup lies are truly incredible. Like the cracked but not cracked
window.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Yes. I'm difficult to confuse.
No, I said that it was very very difficult to AVOID confusing you.
You are EASY to confuse.
LOL. Play it again Sam.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions that they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
LOL. You are either very gullible or deliberately trying to be misled.
They never turned him over.
Total rubbish. It is beyond belief that a team of doctors treating
gunshot wounds "from the back" would fail to look at the back.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Doctors would have turned him over, especially if he had been shot from
behind, to find wounds. No doctor or team of doctors would not look
for wounds, especially if he's supposed to have been shot from the back.
That "didn't look at his back" story is another stupid piece that makes
no sense. An obvious lie.
They were trying to save his life. They were not playing detective.
I.E. They would have treated the ***wounds*** which were, you claim, in
the back.

That "didn't look at the back" claim is way beyond belief. Like much of
the rest of the official stories.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
Yes, the people who saw the body almost all say that the bullet came
from the front.
ALL of the bullet wounds came from the front, or just the head shot?
The wound in the back came from the back.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
The G men who saw only the photos much later see only
what was in the photos.
The pathologists who looked at the photos and concluded that the shots
came from the rear were not "G men".
Post by Bob
The National Archives "lost" the brain.
Maybe they should have looked for JFK's brain in his dick.
Or maybe they "lost" his brain and the rest of the autopsy samples on
purpose. The National Archives have no record of what happened to them
after they received them.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Funny how they deliberately prevented and adequate or even haphazard
credible autopsy from being performed.
The fact that you don't like the results of the autopsy doesn't mean
that they are not credible.
The SS first forcibly took the body away from the lawful medical
examiner in Dallas. Then they switched caskets between arriving in DC
and taking the body to Bethesda Navel Hospital some time later. Then
instead of having an experienced forensic pathologist do a credible
autopsy they arranged for two military doctors who had no previous
experience or credentials in forensic pathology. (Witnesses who spoke
with the doctors say that they were told what to find.) The Johnson
people prevented any credible outside witnesses from being involved in
what was the most important autopsy for the nation in decades. Then
they "lost" the samples and materials.

Note too that there was a mortuary cosmetician who's wife now says was
involved in the plot and was "killed" suspiciously when he began
drinking and gamboling with his sudden unexplained wealth.

So instead of having credible autopsy evidence all that has ever been
available is some blurry photos that numerous photo experts say appear
to have been faked. And of course photos are very easy to fake, so
there is no actual evidence at all. Among those now claiming that the
photos were fake is an official photographer and photo expert from the
Kennedy staff. It's not just some tabloid editors. There easily could
have been credible evidence, and would have been, if the Johnson people
hadn't been so totally committed to preventing any.

The official reports lack any credibility at all.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.
Nobody with autopsy experience or training performed an autopsy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
LOL. YOUR mind is made up. You keep insisting that the official story
is the truth.
No, I say that the official story is NOT the truth.
LOL. Yet you believe most of it and fall back to SS story #2.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Yep, sweep it all under the rug. Use backup story #2.
This is not a "back up" story. Donahue and Menninger have been
persecuted for bringing it to the world.
Yep, add credibility to the story by claiming it is wrong.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Yes, and often tabloids publish truth when nobody else will. The Rush
Limbagh drug thing is a recent example.
What about the monster that came out of a hole in the I-5 freeway
after the 1994 San Fernando Valley earthquake?
More red herrings only demonstrate a lack of willingness to consider
other evidence on your part.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?
You would think so, but agencies like the FBI don't want their
reputation to be tarnished by being known to have been involved in a
coup d'tat.
Make up your mind. Before you said that the witnesses were afraid to
speak while LBJ was alive because they were afraid of retaliation.
So why aren't they afraid of retaliation today from the FBI?
Good question. Some possible answers might include:
1. As you say you can't libel the dead.
2. Many witnesses have been carrying around their story for 4 decades
and are wanting to tell it before they die.
3. Most of the people originally in power have died or are no longer in
power. Hoover, Johnson, Nixon, etc. for example, are dead along with
many of the agents and most of their Texas cohorts.
4. Once the story gets published on camera on national TV there is no
point in killing the witness to silence him/her.

BTW: The History Channel broadcast another story about Johnson last
night, about Johnson's actions after becoming President and his
suspicions and fears about Bobby Kennedy. The story they tell sounds
like someone suffering from MacBeth syndrome, although they didn't say
so. Having killed the King and taken over he had blood on his hands and
would have always been looking over his shoulder out of guilt and fear.
He would be afraid that he either would be found out, or that someone
else would do what he had done.

Bob
Grizzlie Antagonist
2003-11-25 01:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
This is the same glass that you claim wasn't broken in photos of the
care after the shooting. Your contradictions don't add up. First the
photos show no cracks in the glass, and then the exhibits show cracks
inside the glass.
Look at all the stuff that you cut out - including my refutation of
your contention that the AR-15 was not in use at the time, which must
have embarrassed you tremendously.

If it embarrasses you, sweep it under the rug, eh?

Well, to answer what you DID respond to, Oswald's first shot missed
the motorcade entirely. It landed on the pavement to the right of the
vehicle, sprayed upwards and some of the pieces of hot lead landed on
Kennedy.

When Kennedy appears to be reacting to a shot that hit him in Zapruder
frames in Zapruder frame 230, he's actually reacting to a shot that
MISSED him but that produced bullet fragments that hit him on the
ricochet.

On the other hand, some of the bullet fragments from Oswald's first
(missed) shot went on to cause small cracks on the INSIDE of the
windshield, which are visible in still photos of the limousine taken
long after the fact, but which wouldn't necessarily be visible on
pictures of the limousine in fast motion, speeding to Parkland.

However, a bullet hole in the windshield entering from the OUTSIDE of
the windshield and penetrating completely should certainly be visible
on the picture of the limousine speeding to Parkland - if such a
bullet hole existed. It doesn't exist and never did exist and does
not show up on the.picture.

And if the windshield was replaced, as it is supposed to have been
replaced, according to that nonsensical story from the glass shop
dude, then there should be no cracks at all.
Post by Bob
Like most of the official story it doesn't add up.
That is because the official story is wrong.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Not required? Are they possible? Are they probable? Where in the
windshield should I look for this bullethole?
You claim both that there is no bullet hole and that its cracked from
the bullets. Make up your mind.
I just told you.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Right. And the bullet that "magically" fell out of his leg onto the
table at the hospital where a FBI man found it doesn't count.
What are you babbling about now?
That was the single bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. What
about it?
And it magically fell out of his leg at the hospital to be found on a
table by a G man. Sure you betcha' What a cockamamie story.
Actually, the bullet is reported to have been found on one of the
stretchers that carried the two patients into the hospital.

Since Connally received a number of injuries from the same bullet, one
of them being in his left thigh, it seems likely that the left thigh
is where the bullet came to a rest before toppling onto the stretcher.

The bullet had to come to a rest SOMEWHERE.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yep, everyone who's saw something contrary to the official stories is
"mistaken" or "attention seeking" (lying) or greedy. Sure you betcha'
And all of the photos, films, and examinations which support the
"official stories" are all faked. Sure. You betcha.
Lots of them are. The truth is deliberately twisted, even you admit that.
I think that the government is covering up Secret Service misfeasance.

I never "admitted" that I believed in the feasibility of a distortion
of evidence on the grand scale that you envision.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yes, some witnesses say that Oswald was working on a plan to assassinate
Castro with bio-agents (rapid cancers). That is one witness who may not
be as credible, not becasue she's lying but because she was young and in
love at the time. The cancer bio-agents may have been for somebody
other than the CIA.
This 24 year old ne'er do well with a limited educational background
and some personal issues involving his mother certainly was given some
important technical assignments by the CIA.
In point of fact, I know for a fact that the CIA puts its prospective
agents through intensive psychological scrutiny - very intensive -
before it will take them on. Oswald couldn't have passed muster. I
doubt that you or I could either.
And how many years was Oswald working as a spy for the CIA after his
military career?
0 years.

I just told you. He wasn't CIA material.
Post by Bob
We will never know.
YOU will never know because you've chosen to remain in the dark.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
Sure, you betcha'
I wish that I could be sure that the truth would come out. I WOULD
lay down a bet on it.
LOL. The cockamamie story about a coverup becasue some incompetent SS
agent shot the President is ludicrous. Johnson, Hoover, and Bobby would
have hanged him.
"In an off-the-record talk at the White House a few weeks earlier,
Johnson had shocked me by exploding: 'If I ever get killed, it won't
be because of an assassin. It'll be some Secret Service agent who
trips himself up and his gun goes off. They're worse than
trigger-happy Texas sheriffs.'"

- LBJ: The Way He Was, Frank Cormier, Doubleday & Co. (1977)
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Soccer Mom doesn't care. If Soccer Mom had anything resembling a sex
drive, she would probably tell you that she's happy that JFK's
handsome features never grew old.
Go ahead. Toss in another irrelevant red herring. The official story
and backup story are full of red herrings. It diverts focus from the
coup d'tat.
Sorry. It was your red herring. You were arguing that "the people"
were interested in finding out the truth.

Your argument, not mine, and what "the people" want and expect is not
proof of what the truth is.

But I was just showing you that the plurality of "the people" could
not care less about the JFK homicide. It doesn't put money in their
pockets.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
Interesting that the National Archives lost the autopsy samples
including the brain with the big hole at the back,
They must have lost it pretty quickly since the photos taken of
Kennedy's head during the shooting show no such injury.
Photos are so easily faked.
Conspiracy theorists used to swear by the Zapruder film because they
said that it proved conspiracy.

Now that it's clear that the Zapruder film DISPROVES conspiracy,
conspiracy theorists turn around and say that it was faked.

Well, you can't have it both ways.
Post by Bob
They prevented credible and impartial
witnesses and denied the testimony of actual credible witnesses.
Then they stepped into a time machine, went backwards, and killed
JFK's grandparents. Why not? You've ascribed to "them" every other
mystical power.
Post by Bob
Relying on suspicious photos while the evidence was withheld from public
scrutiny and credible autopsies is tantamount to admitting that its fake.
The Moorman photo, which clearly shows no damage to the back of
Kennedy's head, was in Mary Moorman's possession for many years before
being released.

How could anyone have "altered" the Moorman photo if they didn't have
possession of it? How do you "alter" a photo in such a way as to put
skin and hair back onto a skull that has already been blown away?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
the FBI accidentally
shredded and lost much of the evidence so that it wasn't available to
the Congressional committee investigation some years later. I think
you've just found a second layer of coverup.
Coverup of the Secret Service Agent's mortal error, perhaps.
Howard Donahue is confident that the composition of the metal tracings
of the bullet that struck JFK in the head would match the composition
of the AR-15 .223 round, but I think that the FBI's measurements of
those metal tracings is one of those things that were "lost". If they
were indeed "lost".
And of course there is the "magick" bullet that the G man "found" on the
hospital table
On the stretcher
Post by Bob
after it "fell out" of Connley's leg.
Connally ws wounded in the thigh. Where should the bullet have fallen
out of?
Post by Bob
The coverup lies are truly incredible.
And the conspiracy theories even more so.
Post by Bob
Like the cracked but not cracked
window.
"Harp not on that string madam, that is past."

- William Shakespeare, Richard III: Act 4 Scene 4
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Yes. I'm difficult to confuse.
No, I said that it was very very difficult to AVOID confusing you.
You are EASY to confuse.
LOL. Play it again Sam.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions that they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
LOL. You are ei her very gullible or deliberately trying to be misled.
They never turned him over.
Total rubbish. It is beyond belief that a team of doctors treating
gunshot wounds "from the back" would fail to look at the back.
That's not where the action was.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Doctors would have turned him over, especially if he had been shot from
behind, to find wounds. No doctor or team of doctors would not look
for wounds, especially if he's supposed to have been shot from the back.
That "didn't look at his back" story is another stupid piece that makes
no sense. An obvious lie.
They were trying to save his life. They were not playing detective.
I.E. They would have treated the ***wounds*** which were, you claim, in
the back.
Which entered from behind.
Post by Bob
That "didn't look at the back" claim is way beyond belief. Like much of
the rest of the official stories.
They didn't.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
Yes, the people who saw the body almost all say that the bullet came
from the front.
ALL of the bullet wounds came from the front, or just the head shot?
The wound in the back came from the back.
So then the people who supposedly saw the body who supposedly say that
the bullet came from the front are mistaken after all, eh?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
The G men who saw only the photos much later see only
what was in the photos.
The pathologists who looked at the photos and concluded that the shots
came from the rear were not "G men".
Post by Bob
The National Archives "lost" the brain.
Maybe they should have looked for JFK's brain in his dick.
Or maybe they "lost" his brain and the rest of the autopsy samples on
purpose. The National Archives have no record of what happened to them
after they received them.
The losing of the brain might have been for the purpose of preventing
anyone from finding out that the metal content of the bullet fragments
matched that of the .223 round that would have been fired from
Hickey's AR-15.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Funny how they deliberately prevented and adequate or even haphazard
credible autopsy from being performed.
The fact that you don't like the results of the autopsy doesn't mean
that they are not credible.
The SS first forcibly took the body away from the lawful medical
examiner in Dallas. Then they switched caskets
Never happened. The caskets were always in the company of the Kennedy
entourage.
Post by Bob
between arriving in DC
and taking the body to Bethesda Navel Hospital some time later. Then
instead of having an experienced forensic pathologist do a credible
autopsy they arranged for two military doctors who had no previous
experience or credentials in forensic pathology. (Witnesses who spoke
with the doctors say that they were told what to find.) The Johnson
people prevented any credible outside witnesses from being involved in
what was the most important autopsy for the nation in decades. Then
they "lost" the samples and materials.
<Shrugs> There might have been some skullduggery going on for the
purpose of covering up George Warren Hickey's mortal error.
Post by Bob
Note too that there was a mortuary cosmetician who's wife now says was
involved in the plot and was "killed" suspiciously when he began
drinking and gamboling with his sudden unexplained wealth.
It was more profitable than saying that he killed himself. Insurance
companies don't pay on suicides.
Post by Bob
So instead of having credible autopsy evidence all that has ever been
available is some blurry photos that numerous photo experts say appear
tto have been faked. And of course photos are very easy to fake, so
there is no actual evidence at all. Among those now claiming that the
photos were fake is an official photographer and photo expert from the
Kennedy staff. It's not just some tabloid editors. There easily could
have been credible evidence, and would have been, if the Johnson people
hadn't been so totally committed to preventing any.
The official reports lack any credibility at all.
The Zapruder film and the Moorman phot show that Kennedy sustained no
wounds to the rear.

I don't believe in conspiracies that tie together so neatly as to
rearrange all the evidence without a hitch before it could even have
been clear what the cover story was supposed to be.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.
Nobody with autopsy experience or training performed an autopsy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
LOL. YOUR mind is made up. You keep insisting that the official story
is the truth.
No, I say that the official story is NOT the truth.
LOL. Yet you believe most of it and fall back to SS story #2.
It's not SS story #2. The government has never admitted the mortal
error.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Yep, sweep it all under the rug. Use backup story #2.
This is not a "back up" story. Donahue and Menninger have been
persecuted for bringing it to the world.
Yep, add credibility to the story by claiming it is wrong.
The story has been suppressed.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Yes, and often tabloids publish truth when nobody else will. The Rush
Limbagh drug thing is a recent example.
What about the monster that came out of a hole in the I-5 freeway
after the 1994 San Fernando Valley earthquake?
More red herrings only demonstrate a lack of willingness to consider
other evidence on your part.
You are the one that says that you put stock in tabloids. So I'm
asking you if you believe that a monster came out of a hole in the I-5
frreewawy?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?
You would think so, but agencies like the FBI don't want their
reputation to be tarnished by being known to have been involved in a
coup d'tat.
Make up your mind. Before you said that the witnesses were afraid to
speak while LBJ was alive because they were afraid of retaliation.
So why aren't they afraid of retaliation today from the FBI?
1. As you say you can't libel the dead.
And so AGAIN, my question is why didn't this unravel in 1973 after
Johnson died?
Post by Bob
2. Many witnesses have been carrying around their story for 4 decades
and are wanting to tell it before they die.
Wow! The conspiracy that has killed so many other witnesses missed
these witnesses, eh?
Post by Bob
3. Most of the people originally in power have died or are no longer in
power. Hoover, Johnson, Nixon, etc. for example, are dead along with
many of the agents and most of their Texas cohorts.
Nixon too, huh? That'd be a first - for Nixon to have gotten together
with LBJ on anything.

<Sigh> All right, then why didn't this all come out after Nixon died
in 1994?
Post by Bob
4. Once the story gets published on camera on national TV there is no
point in killing the witness to silence him/her.
So why didn't everyone IMMEDIATELY broadcast their story on national
TV?
Post by Bob
BTW: The History Channel broadcast another story about Johnson last
nnight, about Johnson's actions after becoming President and his
Post by Bob
suspicions and fears about Bobby Kennedy. The story they tell sounds
like someone suffering from MacBeth syndrome, although they didn't say
so. Having killed the King and taken over he had blood on his hands and
would have always been looking over his shoulder out of guilt and fear.
He would be afraid that he either would be found out, or that someone
else would do what he had done.
Bob
Probably nothing more than the mutual antagonism that existed between
Johnson and the Kennedys - and possibly some lingering guilt over
nothing more serious than having succeeded a murdered President.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***@yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have another round of applause for YOUR FRESNO GRIZZLIES!"

- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh
at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the
geldings be fruitful" - C.S.Lewis

"The history of women is the history of the worst tyranny the world has ever
known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that ever
lasts." - Oscar Wilde

"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"- Friedrich Nietzsche
John Whitley
2003-11-25 15:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Check out the page for the bestselling 2-DVD set "THE MEN WHO KILLED
KENNEDY", an award-winning 5-part British documentary series which is
meticulously researched, amazing, and informative. Most Americans have
never had the opportunity to view it - or have even heard of it -
because the major TV networks shied away from it, even thought it's
fascinated and enthralled TV audiences around the world!

You'll find it at http://www.survivalistskills.com/KENNEDY.HTM
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
This is the same glass that you claim wasn't broken in photos of the
care after the shooting. Your contradictions don't add up. First the
photos show no cracks in the glass, and then the exhibits show cracks
inside the glass.
Look at all the stuff that you cut out - including my refutation of
your contention that the AR-15 was not in use at the time, which must
have embarrassed you tremendously.
If it embarrasses you, sweep it under the rug, eh?
Well, to answer what you DID respond to, Oswald's first shot missed
the motorcade entirely. It landed on the pavement to the right of the
vehicle, sprayed upwards and some of the pieces of hot lead landed on
Kennedy.
When Kennedy appears to be reacting to a shot that hit him in Zapruder
frames in Zapruder frame 230, he's actually reacting to a shot that
MISSED him but that produced bullet fragments that hit him on the
ricochet.
On the other hand, some of the bullet fragments from Oswald's first
(missed) shot went on to cause small cracks on the INSIDE of the
windshield, which are visible in still photos of the limousine taken
long after the fact, but which wouldn't necessarily be visible on
pictures of the limousine in fast motion, speeding to Parkland.
However, a bullet hole in the windshield entering from the OUTSIDE of
the windshield and penetrating completely should certainly be visible
on the picture of the limousine speeding to Parkland - if such a
bullet hole existed. It doesn't exist and never did exist and does
not show up on the.picture.
And if the windshield was replaced, as it is supposed to have been
replaced, according to that nonsensical story from the glass shop
dude, then there should be no cracks at all.
Post by Bob
Like most of the official story it doesn't add up.
That is because the official story is wrong.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Not required? Are they possible? Are they probable? Where in the
windshield should I look for this bullethole?
You claim both that there is no bullet hole and that its cracked from
the bullets. Make up your mind.
I just told you.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Right. And the bullet that "magically" fell out of his leg onto the
table at the hospital where a FBI man found it doesn't count.
What are you babbling about now?
That was the single bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. What
about it?
And it magically fell out of his leg at the hospital to be found on a
table by a G man. Sure you betcha' What a cockamamie story.
Actually, the bullet is reported to have been found on one of the
stretchers that carried the two patients into the hospital.
Since Connally received a number of injuries from the same bullet, one
of them being in his left thigh, it seems likely that the left thigh
is where the bullet came to a rest before toppling onto the stretcher.
The bullet had to come to a rest SOMEWHERE.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yep, everyone who's saw something contrary to the official stories is
"mistaken" or "attention seeking" (lying) or greedy. Sure you betcha'
And all of the photos, films, and examinations which support the
"official stories" are all faked. Sure. You betcha.
Lots of them are. The truth is deliberately twisted, even you admit that.
I think that the government is covering up Secret Service misfeasance.
I never "admitted" that I believed in the feasibility of a distortion
of evidence on the grand scale that you envision.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yes, some witnesses say that Oswald was working on a plan to assassinate
Castro with bio-agents (rapid cancers). That is one witness who may not
be as credible, not becasue she's lying but because she was young and in
love at the time. The cancer bio-agents may have been for somebody
other than the CIA.
This 24 year old ne'er do well with a limited educational background
and some personal issues involving his mother certainly was given some
important technical assignments by the CIA.
In point of fact, I know for a fact that the CIA puts its prospective
agents through intensive psychological scrutiny - very intensive -
before it will take them on. Oswald couldn't have passed muster. I
doubt that you or I could either.
And how many years was Oswald working as a spy for the CIA after his
military career?
0 years.
I just told you. He wasn't CIA material.
Post by Bob
We will never know.
YOU will never know because you've chosen to remain in the dark.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
Sure, you betcha'
I wish that I could be sure that the truth would come out. I WOULD
lay down a bet on it.
LOL. The cockamamie story about a coverup becasue some incompetent SS
agent shot the President is ludicrous. Johnson, Hoover, and Bobby would
have hanged him.
"In an off-the-record talk at the White House a few weeks earlier,
Johnson had shocked me by exploding: 'If I ever get killed, it won't
be because of an assassin. It'll be some Secret Service agent who
trips himself up and his gun goes off. They're worse than
trigger-happy Texas sheriffs.'"
- LBJ: The Way He Was, Frank Cormier, Doubleday & Co. (1977)
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Soccer Mom doesn't care. If Soccer Mom had anything resembling a sex
drive, she would probably tell you that she's happy that JFK's
handsome features never grew old.
Go ahead. Toss in another irrelevant red herring. The official story
and backup story are full of red herrings. It diverts focus from the
coup d'tat.
Sorry. It was your red herring. You were arguing that "the people"
were interested in finding out the truth.
Your argument, not mine, and what "the people" want and expect is not
proof of what the truth is.
But I was just showing you that the plurality of "the people" could
not care less about the JFK homicide. It doesn't put money in their
pockets.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
Interesting that the National Archives lost the autopsy samples
including the brain with the big hole at the back,
They must have lost it pretty quickly since the photos taken of
Kennedy's head during the shooting show no such injury.
Photos are so easily faked.
Conspiracy theorists used to swear by the Zapruder film because they
said that it proved conspiracy.
Now that it's clear that the Zapruder film DISPROVES conspiracy,
conspiracy theorists turn around and say that it was faked.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
Post by Bob
They prevented credible and impartial
witnesses and denied the testimony of actual credible witnesses.
Then they stepped into a time machine, went backwards, and killed
JFK's grandparents. Why not? You've ascribed to "them" every other
mystical power.
Post by Bob
Relying on suspicious photos while the evidence was withheld from public
scrutiny and credible autopsies is tantamount to admitting that its fake.
The Moorman photo, which clearly shows no damage to the back of
Kennedy's head, was in Mary Moorman's possession for many years before
being released.
How could anyone have "altered" the Moorman photo if they didn't have
possession of it? How do you "alter" a photo in such a way as to put
skin and hair back onto a skull that has already been blown away?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
the FBI accidentally
shredded and lost much of the evidence so that it wasn't available to
the Congressional committee investigation some years later. I think
you've just found a second layer of coverup.
Coverup of the Secret Service Agent's mortal error, perhaps.
Howard Donahue is confident that the composition of the metal tracings
of the bullet that struck JFK in the head would match the composition
of the AR-15 .223 round, but I think that the FBI's measurements of
those metal tracings is one of those things that were "lost". If they
were indeed "lost".
And of course there is the "magick" bullet that the G man "found" on the
hospital table
On the stretcher
Post by Bob
after it "fell out" of Connley's leg.
Connally ws wounded in the thigh. Where should the bullet have fallen
out of?
Post by Bob
The coverup lies are truly incredible.
And the conspiracy theories even more so.
Post by Bob
Like the cracked but not cracked
window.
"Harp not on that string madam, that is past."
- William Shakespeare, Richard III: Act 4 Scene 4
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Yes. I'm difficult to confuse.
No, I said that it was very very difficult to AVOID confusing you.
You are EASY to confuse.
LOL. Play it again Sam.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions t at they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
LOL. You are either very gullible or deliberately trying to be misled.
They never turned him over.
Total rubbish. It is beyond belief that a team of doctors treating
gunshot wounds "from the back" would fail to look at the back.
That's not where the action was.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Doctors would have turned him over, especially if he had been shot from
behind, to find wounds. No doctor or team of doctors would not look
for wounds, especially if he's supposed to have been shot from the back.
That "didn't look at his back" story is another stupid piece that makes
no sense. An obvious lie.
They were trying to save his life. They were not playing detective.
I.E. They would have treated the ***wounds*** which were, you claim, in
the back.
Which entered from behind.
Post by Bob
That "didn't look at the back" claim is way beyond belief. Like much of
the rest of the official stories.
They didn't.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
Yes, the people who saw the body almost all say that the bullet came
from the front.
ALL of the bullet wounds came from the front, or just the head shot?
The wound in the back came from the back.
So then the people who supposedly saw the body who supposedly say that
the bullet came from the front are mistaken after all, eh?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
The G men who saw only the photos much later see only
what was in the photos.
The pathologists who looked at the photos and concluded that the shots
came from the rear were not "G men".
Post by Bob
The National Archives "lost" the brain.
Maybe they should have looked for JFK's brain in his dick.
Or maybe they "lost" his brain and the rest of the autopsy samples on
purpose. The National Archives have no record of what happened to them
after they received them.
The losing of the brain might have been for the purpose of preventing
anyone from finding out that the metal content of the bullet fragments
matched that of the .223 round that would have been fired from
Hickey's AR-15.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Funny how they deliberately prevented and adequate or even haphazard
credible autopsy from being performed.
The fact that you don't like the results of the autopsy doesn't mean
that they are not credible.
The SS first forcibly took the body away from the lawful medical
examiner in Dallas. Then they switched caskets
Never happened. The caskets were always in the company of the Kennedy
entourage.
Post by Bob
between arriving in DC
and taking the body to Bethesda Navel Hospital some time later. Then
instead of having an experienced forensic pathologist do a credible
autopsy they arranged for two military doctors who had no previous
experience or credentials in forensic pathology. (Witnesses who spoke
with the doctors say that they were told what to find.) The Johnson
people prevented any credible outside witnesses from being involved in
what was the most important autopsy for the nation in decades. Then
they "lost" the samples and materials.
<Shrugs> There might have been some skullduggery going on for the
purpose of covering up George Warren Hickey's mortal error.
Post by Bob
Note too that there was a mortuary cosmetician who's wife now says was
involved in the plot and was "killed" suspiciously when he began
drinking and gamboling with his sudden unexplained wealth.
It was more profitable than saying that he killed himself. Insurance
companies don't pay on suicides.
Post by Bob
So instead of having credible autopsy evidence all that has ever been
available is some blurry photos that numerous photo experts say appear
tto have been faked. And of course photos are very easy to fake, so
there is no actual evidence at all. Among those now claiming that the
photos were fake is an official photographer and photo expert from the
Kennedy staff. It's not just some tabloid editors. There easily could
have been credible evidence, and would have been, if the Johnson people
hadn't been so totally committed to preventing any.
The official reports lack any credibility at all.
The Zapruder film and the Moorman phot show that Kennedy sustained no
wounds to the rear.
I don't believe in conspiracies that tie together so neatly as to
rearrange all the evidence without a hitch before it could even have
been clear what the cover story was supposed to be.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.
Nobody with autopsy experience or training performed an autopsy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
LOL. YOUR mind is made up. You keep insisting that the official story
is the truth.
No, I say that the official story is NOT the truth.
LOL. Yet you believe most of it and fall back to SS story #2.
It's not SS story #2. The government has never admitted the mortal
error.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Yep, sweep it all under the rug. Use backup story #2.
This is not a "back up" story. Donahue and Menninger have been
persecuted for bringing it to the world.
Yep, add credibility to the story by claiming it is wrong.
The story has been suppressed.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Yes, and often tabloids publish truth when nobody else will. The Rush
Limbagh drug thing is a recent example.
What about the monster that came out of a hole in the I-5 freeway
after the 1994 San Fernando Valley earthquake?
More red herrings only demonstrate a lack of willingness to consider
other evidence on your part.
You are the one that says that you put stock in tabloids. So I'm
asking you if you believe that a monster came out of a hole in the I-5
frreewawy?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?
You would think so, but agencies like the FBI don't want their
reputation to be tarnished by being known to have been involved in a
coup d'tat.
Make up your mind. Before you said that the witnesses were afraid to
speak while LBJ was alive because they were afraid of retaliation.
So why aren't they afraid of retaliation today from the FBI?
1. As you say you can't libel the dead.
And so AGAIN, my question is why didn't this unravel in 1973 after
Johnson died?
Post by Bob
2. Many witnesses have been carrying around their story for 4 decades
and are wanting to tell it before they die.
Wow! The conspiracy that has killed so many other witnesses missed
these witnesses, eh?
Post by Bob
3. Most of the people originally in power have died or are no longer in
power. Hoover, Johnson, Nixon, etc. for example, are dead along with
many of the agents and most of their Texas cohorts.
Nixon too, huh? That'd be a first - for Nixon to have gotten together
with LBJ on anything.
<Sigh> All right, then why didn't this all come out after Nixon died
in 1994?
Post by Bob
4. Once the story gets published on camera on national TV there is no
point in killing the witness to silence him/her.
So why didn't everyone IMMEDIATELY broadcast their story on national
TV?
Post by Bob
BTW: The History Channel broadcast another story about Johnson last
nnight, about Johnson's actions after becoming President and his
Post by Bob
suspicions and fears about Bobby Kennedy. The story they tell sounds
like someone suffering from MacBeth syndrome, although they didn't say
so. Having killed the King and taken over he had blood on his hands and
would have always been looking over his shoulder out of guilt and fear.
He would be afraid that he either would be found out, or that someone
else would do what he had done.
Bob
Probably nothing more than the mutual antagonism that existed between
Johnson and the Kennedys - and possibly some lingering guilt over
nothing more serious than having succeeded a murdered President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have another round of applause for YOUR FRESNO GRIZZLIES!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh
at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the
geldings be fruitful" - C.S.Lewis
"The history of women is the history of the worst tyranny the world has ever
known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that ever
lasts." - Oscar Wilde
"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Bob
2003-11-25 15:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Whitley
Check out the page for the bestselling 2-DVD set "THE MEN WHO KILLED
KENNEDY", an award-winning 5-part British documentary series which is
meticulously researched, amazing, and informative. Most Americans have
never had the opportunity to view it - or have even heard of it -
because the major TV networks shied away from it, even thought it's
fascinated and enthralled TV audiences around the world!
You'll find it at http://www.survivalistskills.com/KENNEDY.HTM
That title sounds like what the History Channel has bee showing
recently. It goes on for hours and is amazingly well researched. It
was new to me. Most Americans, like you say, have never had the
opportunity to see it before. The Johnson coup d'tat is extensively
documented.

Bob
Post by John Whitley
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Because the commission exhibits of the windshield show cracks on the
inside glass.
This is the same glass that you claim wasn't broken in photos of the
care after the shooting. Your contradictions don't add up. First the
photos show no cracks in the glass, and then the exhibits show cracks
inside the glass.
Look at all the stuff that you cut out - including my refutation of
your contention that the AR-15 was not in use at the time, which must
have embarrassed you tremendously.
If it embarrasses you, sweep it under the rug, eh?
Well, to answer what you DID respond to, Oswald's first shot missed
the motorcade entirely. It landed on the pavement to the right of the
vehicle, sprayed upwards and some of the pieces of hot lead landed on
Kennedy.
When Kennedy appears to be reacting to a shot that hit him in Zapruder
frames in Zapruder frame 230, he's actually reacting to a shot that
MISSED him but that produced bullet fragments that hit him on the
ricochet.
On the other hand, some of the bullet fragments from Oswald's first
(missed) shot went on to cause small cracks on the INSIDE of the
windshield, which are visible in still photos of the limousine taken
long after the fact, but which wouldn't necessarily be visible on
pictures of the limousine in fast motion, speeding to Parkland.
However, a bullet hole in the windshield entering from the OUTSIDE of
the windshield and penetrating completely should certainly be visible
on the picture of the limousine speeding to Parkland - if such a
bullet hole existed. It doesn't exist and never did exist and does
not show up on the.picture.
And if the windshield was replaced, as it is supposed to have been
replaced, according to that nonsensical story from the glass shop
dude, then there should be no cracks at all.
Post by Bob
Like most of the official story it doesn't add up.
That is because the official story is wrong.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Not required? Are they possible? Are they probable? Where in the
windshield should I look for this bullethole?
You claim both that there is no bullet hole and that its cracked from
the bullets. Make up your mind.
I just told you.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Right. And the bullet that "magically" fell out of his leg onto the
table at the hospital where a FBI man found it doesn't count.
What are you babbling about now?
That was the single bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. What
about it?
And it magically fell out of his leg at the hospital to be found on a
table by a G man. Sure you betcha' What a cockamamie story.
Actually, the bullet is reported to have been found on one of the
stretchers that carried the two patients into the hospital.
Since Connally received a number of injuries from the same bullet, one
of them being in his left thigh, it seems likely that the left thigh
is where the bullet came to a rest before toppling onto the stretcher.
The bullet had to come to a rest SOMEWHERE.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yep, everyone who's saw something contrary to the official stories is
"mistaken" or "attention seeking" (lying) or greedy. Sure you betcha'
And all of the photos, films, and examinations which support the
"official stories" are all faked. Sure. You betcha.
Lots of them are. The truth is deliberately twisted, even you admit that.
I think that the government is covering up Secret Service misfeasance.
I never "admitted" that I believed in the feasibility of a distortion
of evidence on the grand scale that you envision.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Yes, some witnesses say that Oswald was working on a plan to assassinate
Castro with bio-agents (rapid cancers). That is one witness who may not
be as credible, not becasue she's lying but because she was young and in
love at the time. The cancer bio-agents may have been for somebody
other than the CIA.
This 24 year old ne'er do well with a limited educational background
and some personal issues involving his mother certainly was given some
important technical assignments by the CIA.
In point of fact, I know for a fact that the CIA puts its prospective
agents through intensive psychological scrutiny - very intensive -
before it will take them on. Oswald couldn't have passed muster. I
doubt that you or I could either.
And how many years was Oswald working as a spy for the CIA after his
military career?
0 years.
I just told you. He wasn't CIA material.
Post by Bob
We will never know.
YOU will never know because you've chosen to remain in the dark.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
LOL. The SS shot the president.
One SS agent did. By accident.
Sure, you betcha'
I wish that I could be sure that the truth would come out. I WOULD
lay down a bet on it.
LOL. The cockamamie story about a coverup becasue some incompetent SS
agent shot the President is ludicrous. Johnson, Hoover, and Bobby would
have hanged him.
"In an off-the-record talk at the White House a few weeks earlier,
Johnson had shocked me by exploding: 'If I ever get killed, it won't
be because of an assassin. It'll be some Secret Service agent who
trips himself up and his gun goes off. They're worse than
trigger-happy Texas sheriffs.'"
- LBJ: The Way He Was, Frank Cormier, Doubleday & Co. (1977)
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Soccer Mom doesn't care. If Soccer Mom had anything resembling a sex
drive, she would probably tell you that she's happy that JFK's
handsome features never grew old.
Go ahead. Toss in another irrelevant red herring. The official story
and backup story are full of red herrings. It diverts focus from the
coup d'tat.
Sorry. It was your red herring. You were arguing that "the people"
were interested in finding out the truth.
Your argument, not mine, and what "the people" want and expect is not
proof of what the truth is.
But I was just showing you that the plurality of "the people" could
not care less about the JFK homicide. It doesn't put money in their
pockets.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And if retired special agent George Warren Hickey isn't going to
confess to having accidentally shot JFK, while Hickey is still alive,
he should be interviewed - but it's also possible that he's planning a
deathbed confession.
Interesting that the National Archives lost the autopsy samples
including the brain with the big hole at the back,
They must have lost it pretty quickly since the photos taken of
Kennedy's head during the shooting show no such injury.
Photos are so easily faked.
Conspiracy theorists used to swear by the Zapruder film because they
said that it proved conspiracy.
Now that it's clear that the Zapruder film DISPROVES conspiracy,
conspiracy theorists turn around and say that it was faked.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
Post by Bob
They prevented credible and impartial
witnesses and denied the testimony of actual credible witnesses.
Then they stepped into a time machine, went backwards, and killed
JFK's grandparents. Why not? You've ascribed to "them" every other
mystical power.
Post by Bob
Relying on suspicious photos while the evidence was withheld from public
scrutiny and credible autopsies is tantamount to admitting that its fake.
The Moorman photo, which clearly shows no damage to the back of
Kennedy's head, was in Mary Moorman's possession for many years before
being released.
How could anyone have "altered" the Moorman photo if they didn't have
possession of it? How do you "alter" a photo in such a way as to put
skin and hair back onto a skull that has already been blown away?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
the FBI accidentally
shredded and lost much of the evidence so that it wasn't available to
the Congressional committee investigation some years later. I think
you've just found a second layer of coverup.
Coverup of the Secret Service Agent's mortal error, perhaps.
Howard Donahue is confident that the composition of the metal tracings
of the bullet that struck JFK in the head would match the composition
of the AR-15 .223 round, but I think that the FBI's measurements of
those metal tracings is one of those things that were "lost". If they
were indeed "lost".
And of course there is the "magick" bullet that the G man "found" on the
hospital table
On the stretcher
Post by Bob
after it "fell out" of Connley's leg.
Connally ws wounded in the thigh. Where should the bullet have fallen
out of?
Post by Bob
The coverup lies are truly incredible.
And the conspiracy theories even more so.
Post by Bob
Like the cracked but not cracked
window.
"Harp not on that string madam, that is past."
- William Shakespeare, Richard III: Act 4 Scene 4
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm trying. I'm really trying. But it's very very difficult to avoid
confusing you.
Yes. I'm difficult to confuse.
No, I said that it was very very difficult to AVOID confusing you.
You are EASY to confuse.
LOL. Play it again Sam.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
...who never turned him on his back because it was not part of the
life-saving functions that they were trying to perform.
LOL. If you believe that I've got a great bridge for sale at a discount
price.
That they never turned him on his back? They never did. If they had,
they would have seen the rear entry wounds.
LOL. You are either very gullible or deliberately trying to be misled.
They never turned him over.
Total rubbish. It is beyond belief that a team of doctors treating
gunshot wounds "from the back" would fail to look at the back.
That's not where the action was.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Doctors would have turned him over, especially if he had been shot from
behind, to find wounds. No doctor or team of doctors would not look
for wounds, especially if he's supposed to have been shot from the back.
That "didn't look at his back" story is another stupid piece that makes
no sense. An obvious lie.
They were trying to save his life. They were not playing detective.
I.E. They would have treated the ***wounds*** which were, you claim, in
the back.
Which entered from behind.
Post by Bob
That "didn't look at the back" claim is way beyond belief. Like much of
the rest of the official stories.
They didn't.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That's why conspiracy theorists say that the photos were faked or that
the corpse was altered.
Yes, the people who saw the body almost all say that the bullet came
from the front.
ALL of the bullet wounds came from the front, or just the head shot?
The wound in the back came from the back.
So then the people who supposedly saw the body who supposedly say that
the bullet came from the front are mistaken after all, eh?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
The G men who saw only the photos much later see only
what was in the photos.
The pathologists who looked at the photos and concluded that the shots
came from the rear were not "G men".
Post by Bob
The National Archives "lost" the brain.
Maybe they should have looked for JFK's brain in his dick.
Or maybe they "lost" his brain and the rest of the autopsy samples on
purpose. The National Archives have no record of what happened to them
after they received them.
The losing of the brain might have been for the purpose of preventing
anyone from finding out that the metal content of the bullet fragments
matched that of the .223 round that would have been fired from
Hickey's AR-15.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Funny how they deliberately prevented and adequate or even haphazard
credible autopsy from being performed.
The fact that you don't like the results of the autopsy doesn't mean
that they are not credible.
The SS first forcibly took the body away from the lawful medical
examiner in Dallas. Then they switched caskets
Never happened. The caskets were always in the company of the Kennedy
entourage.
Post by Bob
between arriving in DC
and taking the body to Bethesda Navel Hospital some time later. Then
instead of having an experienced forensic pathologist do a credible
autopsy they arranged for two military doctors who had no previous
experience or credentials in forensic pathology. (Witnesses who spoke
with the doctors say that they were told what to find.) The Johnson
people prevented any credible outside witnesses from being involved in
what was the most important autopsy for the nation in decades. Then
they "lost" the samples and materials.
<Shrugs> There might have been some skullduggery going on for the
purpose of covering up George Warren Hickey's mortal error.
Post by Bob
Note too that there was a mortuary cosmetician who's wife now says was
involved in the plot and was "killed" suspiciously when he began
drinking and gamboling with his sudden unexplained wealth.
It was more profitable than saying that he killed himself. Insurance
companies don't pay on suicides.
Post by Bob
So instead of having credible autopsy evidence all that has ever been
available is some blurry photos that numerous photo experts say appear
tto have been faked. And of course photos are very easy to fake, so
there is no actual evidence at all. Among those now claiming that the
photos were fake is an official photographer and photo expert from the
Kennedy staff. It's not just some tabloid editors. There easily could
have been credible evidence, and would have been, if the Johnson people
hadn't been so totally committed to preventing any.
The official reports lack any credibility at all.
The Zapruder film and the Moorman phot show that Kennedy sustained no
wounds to the rear.
I don't believe in conspiracies that tie together so neatly as to
rearrange all the evidence without a hitch before it could even have
been clear what the cover story was supposed to be.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
They didn't do a credible autopsy. They prevented a credible autopsy
and created some fake photos.
Yes, everything that doesn't support your point of view was a "fake" -
the "fakes" having been created before it would have been clear as to
what was necessary to be faked.
Nobody with autopsy experience or training performed an autopsy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Your mind is already made up; you don't want to be confused with the
facts. You said so yourself.
LOL. YOUR mind is made up. You keep insisting that the official story
is the truth.
No, I say that the official story is NOT the truth.
LOL. Yet you believe most of it and fall back to SS story #2.
It's not SS story #2. The government has never admitted the mortal
error.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
i.e. "I'm unwilling to consider anything new."
I know; I know you are unwilling to consider anything new. The truth
is too boring, and you're not anxious to hear that JFK actually came
to a rather trivial - and, in some ways, comical - end.
Yep, sweep it all under the rug. Use backup story #2.
This is not a "back up" story. Donahue and Menninger have been
persecuted for bringing it to the world.
Yep, add credibility to the story by claiming it is wrong.
The story has been suppressed.
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Its good that its finally being said in public media.
Is that the television equivalent of a tabloid newspaper?
Yes, and often tabloids publish truth when nobody else will. The Rush
Limbagh drug thing is a recent example.
What about the monster that came out of a hole in the I-5 freeway
after the 1994 San Fernando Valley earthquake?
More red herrings only demonstrate a lack of willingness to consider
other evidence on your part.
You are the one that says that you put stock in tabloids. So I'm
asking you if you believe that a monster came out of a hole in the I-5
frreewawy?
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Bob
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Johnson is dead, otherwise many of the witnesses wouldn't be talking at
all.
Er - then shouldn't the whole thing have started to unravel after
LBJ's death in 1973?
You would think so, but agencies like the FBI don't want their
reputation to be tarnished by being known to have been involved in a
coup d'tat.
Make up your mind. Before you said that the witnesses were afraid to
speak while LBJ was alive because they were afraid of retaliation.
So why aren't they afraid of retaliation today from the FBI?
1. As you say you can't libel the dead.
And so AGAIN, my question is why didn't this unravel in 1973 after
Johnson died?
Post by Bob
2. Many witnesses have been carrying around their story for 4 decades
and are wanting to tell it before they die.
Wow! The conspiracy that has killed so many other witnesses missed
these witnesses, eh?
Post by Bob
3. Most of the people originally in power have died or are no longer in
power. Hoover, Johnson, Nixon, etc. for example, are dead along with
many of the agents and most of their Texas cohorts.
Nixon too, huh? That'd be a first - for Nixon to have gotten together
with LBJ on anything.
<Sigh> All right, then why didn't this all come out after Nixon died
in 1994?
Post by Bob
4. Once the story gets published on camera on national TV there is no
point in killing the witness to silence him/her.
So why didn't everyone IMMEDIATELY broadcast their story on national
TV?
Post by Bob
BTW: The History Channel broadcast another story about Johnson last
nnight, about Johnson's actions after becoming President and his
Post by Bob
suspicions and fears about Bobby Kennedy. The story they tell sounds
like someone suffering from MacBeth syndrome, although they didn't say
so. Having killed the King and taken over he had blood on his hands and
would have always been looking over his shoulder out of guilt and fear.
He would be afraid that he either would be found out, or that someone
else would do what he had done.
Bob
Probably nothing more than the mutual antagonism that existed between
Johnson and the Kennedys - and possibly some lingering guilt over
nothing more serious than having succeeded a murdered President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have another round of applause for YOUR FRESNO GRIZZLIES!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh
at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the
geldings be fruitful" - C.S.Lewis
"The history of women is the history of the worst tyranny the world has ever
known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that ever
lasts." - Oscar Wilde
"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Loading...