JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Paul May on December 17, 2018, 05:36:06 PM
-
After 55 years, was somebody else pulling Oswald?s strings? It?s unlikely as time passes whether this sole question will ever be answered. I, for one doubt it. History has recorded LHO as the one shooter. I agree with this to a 99% certainty. That 1% remains elusive.
-
After 55 years, was somebody else pulling Oswald?s strings? It?s unlikely as time passes whether this sole question will ever be answered. I, for one doubt it. History has recorded LHO as the one shooter. I agree with this to a 99% certainty. That 1% remains elusive.
It seems to me that Lee was being misguided ..... so yes somebody else was pulling the strings that had him acting the puppet....
But he was NOT being coerced, or forced. He was being misled and thought that he was doing something entirely different than what the puppet master was doing. Viewed from Lee's side of the staged event he was being portrayed as a friend of Fidel Castro's revolution and was taking a pot shot at JFK....But from the other side of the stage the puppet master had set up a hit team to actually murder the President.....
-
Another theory, unprovable. That?s my point. There may have been a conspiracy to have LHO shoot and kill the POTUS that day. Yet, it cannot not be proven with hard, credible evidence.
-
Another theory, unprovable. That?s my point. There may have been a conspiracy to have LHO shoot and kill the POTUS that day. Yet, it cannot not be proven with hard, credible evidence.
Not sure what you consider "hard, credible evidence"... I know you accept the finding of LBJ's "special Blue Ribbon Committee"and that finding sure as hell is NOT based on "credible evidence"
And that's the problem.... Our convictions are based on what we see as "credible evidence" But If we focus on just a single point and examine that point to determine if it credible then we can proceed on to other points.
Let's take the scope issue.... It is a substantiated fact that the scope was never mounted correctly so that the scope could be used to aim the rifle accurately. There's no denying this is a fact... Now since that is a fact anybody who attempted to shoot and hit an 8 inch target that was more than twenty yards from the muzzle of the rifle could not possibly have hit that target.
The FBI said the bullets fired from the rifle were impacting a target over 4 inches off from the aiming point at a range of a mere 15 yards... At twenty yards the bullets would have been about 8 inches off the aiming point...
-
Oswald qualified as a Marine sharpshooter. It is my belief, and mine only perhaps the scope played no role in the assassination. Oswald likely new the sites provided him with more accuracy and the final head shot at 88 yards on a downward trajectory was not terribly difficult for a sharpshooter. Yet, this is but one piece of the puzzle. I for one don?t look at only one piece. I?ve examined the totality of ALL the evidence assembled. Unfortunately, many CT?s, I?m not saying you, examine ?evidence? to confirm their own biased theory at the expense of understanding Oswald and who and what he represented.
-
Oswald qualified as a Marine sharpshooter. It is my belief, and mine only perhaps the scope played no role in the assassination. Oswald likely new the sites provided him with more accuracy and the final head shot at 88 yards on a downward trajectory was not terribly difficult for a sharpshooter. Yet, this is but one piece of the puzzle. I for one don?t look at only one piece. I?ve examined the totality of ALL the evidence assembled. Unfortunately, many CT?s, I?m not saying you, examine ?evidence? to confirm their own biased theory at the expense of understanding Oswald and who and what he represented.
On one hand you give Lee credit for being an expert with rifles, but on the other hand you say that he was so inept that he wouldn't even bother to check zero of the scope....
If Lee was the expert that you believe he was then he would not have kept that worthless bulky piece of junk on the rifle...
If what you believe were true ...He would have removed that mis-mounted piece of junk while disassembling the rifle ( as you believe) before stuffing the miscellaneous parts into a paper bag.
-
I don?t disagree with your statement. The anomalies in Oswalds?s behavior before, during and after the event are curious indeed. Law enforcement looks at consciousness of guilt along with physical and medical evidence. No one researcher, regardless of their beliefs can explain with a high degree of certainty LHO?s behavior on 11/22. That?s my point. It will never be explained with 100 % certainty.
-
I don?t disagree with your statement. The anomalies in Oswalds?s behavior before, during and after the event are curious indeed. Law enforcement looks at consciousness of guilt along with physical and medical evidence. No one researcher, regardless of their beliefs can explain with a high degree of certainty LHO?s behavior on 11/22. That?s my point. It will never be explained with 100 % certainty.
C'mon Mr May, don't try to evade.... You have just said that you agree with me, and that Lee Oswald would not have kept that piece of junk scope on the rifle, because it was just a worthless piece of junk that added weight and bulk to a rifle that you believe he was disassembling to stuff into a paper sac to smuggle into the TSBD.
But we both know that the scope was on the rifle when it was found. So either Lee was NOT the rifle expert that you try to portray, or he was a complete nut who didn't know enough to check zero on his rifle before setting out on his mission.
-
There are lots of remaining questions. Pretty much everything about this case is a remaining question, despite Paul May's insistence that it has all been settled.
-
Evade what? There is no resolution. I cannot evade what doesn?t exist. Oswald was a successful assassin by inches. No doubt, he was going for a head shot. The easiest shot was shot #3. We can deduce that in reality he missed two out of three shots. Was it nerves? The 11 MPH wind he didn?t account for? Nobody knows. We?ll never know. Using Occam?s razor principles, Oswald hit the easy shot after missing intended target twice. This issue as most have been debated 55 years with no resolution to a 100% certainty. It cannot be resolved. We can only guess based on what we do know. JFK died and ALL the evidence points to LHO.
-
Perhaps, but there are no remaining answers.
-
There are lots of remaining questions. Pretty much everything about this case is a remaining question, despite Paul May's insistence that it has all been settled.
Yes, I agree that there a hundreds of unanswered questions.... But I'm trying to resolve just one of those questions concerning what Mr May calls "credible evidence" ....
He presented the argument that Lee Oswald was a world class expert who could fire any rifle with extreme accuracy even if the scope was mounted askew.....
I strongly disagree... No person regardless of his expertise could fire any rifle accurately with the scope mounted out of align with the barrel. And a true expert ( and would be assassin) would simply have removed that easily removable piece of junk and got it out of his way.....
-
So, now, although our conversation was civil, you choose to embellish my words and lie about what I stated. So, please copy and paste my supposed comment ?LHO was a world class expert who could fire any rifle?. And you wonder why people refuse to engage conspiracy advocates. This is exactly what you people do. You fabricate and lie. Shameful.
-
So, now, although our conversation was civil, you choose to embellish my words and lie about what I stated. So, please copy and paste my supposed comment ?LHO was a world class expert who could fire any rifle?. And you wonder why people refuse to engage conspiracy advocates. This is exactly what you people do. You fabricate and lie. Shameful.
Mr May, I'm merely drawing a conclusion that is based on your theory that Lee Oswald was an expert sniper.
In saying that ?LHO was a world class expert who could fire any rifle?. I am merely translating your theory....because you apparently believe that simply because Lee was able to qualify ( by the skin of his teeth) with an excellent rifle after days of training, that he was then an expert who could fire any old piece of junk rifle with deadly accuracy.
-
You cannot translate my theory using YOUR words stating they are my words. My point was Oswald had the necessary skills for a relatively easy shot. This very debate has raged for 55 years and once again I will state it will never be resolved.
-
Evade what? There is no resolution. I cannot evade what doesn?t exist. Oswald was a successful assassin by inches. No doubt, he was going for a head shot. The easiest shot was shot #3. We can deduce that in reality he missed two out of three shots. Was it nerves? The 11 MPH wind he didn?t account for? Nobody knows. We?ll never know. Using Occam?s razor principles, Oswald hit the easy shot after missing intended target twice. This issue as most have been debated 55 years with no resolution to a 100% certainty. It cannot be resolved. We can only guess based on what we do know. JFK died and ALL the evidence points to LHO.
Mr May, You're making quantum leaps here..... You have NOT proved your statement that Lee Oswald was an expert who could fire a rusty old rifle with the scope mounted askew with world class precision and speed...
-
I think Mr May is right when he says
you could never convince everyone to agree on this case
But IMO the truth is there and it is obvious
A recent survey commissioned by the FiveThirtyEight news site, found that all these years on from that morning on November 22 1963, only 33 per cent of people believe the finding of the official Warren Commission, which concluded in 1964, that Oswald alone was responsible for Kennedy's death. A total of 61 per cent believe at least one other person was involved.
Lone nut advocates are the minority
and getting smaller everyday
-
Perhaps, but there are no remaining answers.
The 1977 letter of Billy Joe Lord and the brazen writing and TV debate from Nicholas B Lemann indicate there
was some sort of a tug of war ongoing, and this evidence is of cover up at the highest reaches....cover up of....what?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1439.0.html
....All that Lord described that is directlymaterial to the charge of Bush and those closest to him literally muscling Lord
in 1976, is on the table. However, I am now convinced after this week the haves are so far ahead, it cannot even be
a contest, anymore.
First, the core accusation, hyper curiousity displayed by team Bush towards Lord knowledge, as the HSCA geared up
and it had become clear republicans would lose control of the presidency and of the CIA. This answers the question
of why risk rattling Billy Lord's cage if you were among the innermost Bush circle?
......
https://charlierose.com/videos/28642
Monday 12/30/1991 Journalist Nicholas Lemann, movie critic David Denby, and co-screenwriter Zachary Sklar debate Oliver Stone's movie "JFK"
as well as the facts surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
....Charlie Rose: But first, Oliver Stone's new film "JFK" has opened to tremendous controversy. Much of the mainstream press thinks he has taken film making too far, tampering with perhaps the most seminal event in our recent history. Others believe he has reopened doors that were closed prematurely almost thirty years ago. Here to discuss the scope and the impact of the movie are its co-screenwriter, Zachary Sklar, who edited Jim Garrison's 1988 book, On the Trail of the Assassins. Also here, David Denby, the film critic for New York Magazine and journalist Nicholas Lemann, who wrote the recent cover story on JFK in GQ Magazine.....
Nicholas Lemann's father Thomas, uncle Stephen, and step-aunt Baldwin are all mentioned in this 1990
obit of his step-grandmother, widow of his grandfather, Monte Lemann:
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orl...its/1/l-11.txt
003004 Lemann ? Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann, A Homemaker, Died Friday At Her Home In New Orleans. She
Was 94. Mrs. Lemann Was A Lifelong Resident Of New Orleans. ? In 1929, She Worked At Metairie Park
Country Day School, Where She Coordinated The School?s Non-Academic Activities. Survivors Include A Daughter,
Mildred Lyons Baldwin;
A Sister, Ethel Crumb Brett; Two Stepsons, Thomas B. Lemann, And Stephen B. Lemann; ?. Times Picayune 01-14-1990
GILPATRIC'S ROLE IN TFX QUESTIONED; McClellan Raises an...
- New York Times - Nov 19, 1963
...The session brought out that ,Mr. Gilpatric was influential in j Continued on Page 17, Column 3 GILPATRIC S ROLE ON TFX QUERIED Continued From Page 1, Col. 2 bringing the General Dynamics account to his law firm, that Maurice Moore, senior partner of the firm, was named to the General Dynamics board of directors one month after the TFX contract was awarded to the company. -Gilpatric's former law firm was named counsel for General Dynamics at the same time. -Gilpatric acknowledged that he spent about onefourth of his time as a lawyer during 2i4 years in the late 1950's handling General Dynamics matters, and GD paid his firm $111000 in legal fees during this same period....."
....and who can forget that Frank Pace joined the board of Time, Inc. just after Henry Luce's sister's husband,former publisher of Time Maurice "Tex" Moore and his law partner Roz Gilpatric negotiated the merger of Pace's General Dynamics
with "Henry Crown, Inc.?"
April 22, 1960 WSJ:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6936911103_a23b20874a_b.jpg)
MAURICE T. MOORE DIES AT 90; EX-CRAVATH, SWAINE PARTNER
By JOAN COOK (The New York Times); Obituary
June 24, 1986, Tuesday
Late City Final Edition, Section A, Page 25, Column 1,325 words
Maurice T. Moore, a former presiding partner in the New York law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, died Sunday at his apartment in Manhattan. He was 90 years old and also lived in Weston, Conn. Mr. Moore was associated with the firm from 1920 to 1967 and became presiding partner in 1963.
end
Boston Globe, The (MA) - June 25, 1986
Deceased Name: MAURICE MOORE , 90 WAS CHAIRMAN OF TIME INC.
NEW YORK -- Maurice T. Moore, former chairman of Time Inc., has died at the age of 90.
Mr. Moore died Sunday in his Manhattan apartment. He also had a home in Weston, Conn.
Mr. Moore worked with the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore from 1920 to 1967 and became presiding partner in 1963.
In 1927, the firm became counsel for Time Inc. Mr. Moore, whose brother- in-law, Henry Luce, founded the magazine in 1923, was elected to Time's board of directors in 1939 and remained on it until 1970. He was chairman from 1942 to 1960.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GeneralDynamicsMooreGilpatricPacePg17.jpg)
-
I think Mr May is right when he says
you could never convince everyone to agree on this case
But IMO the truth is there and it is obvious
A recent survey commissioned by the FiveThirtyEight news site, found that all these years on from that morning on November 22 1963, only 33 per cent of people believe the finding of the official Warren Commission, which concluded in 1964, that Oswald alone was responsible for Kennedy's death. A total of 61 per cent believe at least one other person was involved.
Lone nut advocates are the minority
and getting smaller everyday
Quite candidly the truth doesn?t require people to believe it. You didn?t give the year of this latest survey you mentioned but I will point one thing out to you. The median age in America today is 37
years old. So, how many of these people are knowledgeable about an event 18 years before they were born? So much for surveys.
-
Quite candidly the truth doesn?t require people to believe it. You didn?t give the year of this latest survey you mentioned but I will point one thing out to you. The median age in America today is 37
years old. So, how many of these people are knowledgeable about an event 18 years before they were born? So much for surveys.
So, what's your point? That the Kennedy murder is already part of history and that Oswald is in the history books as the lone nut killer?
Does that somehow make you feel good?
If that's the case, you might want to read up on the Reichtag fire and Marinus van der Lubbe in 1933 or, the execution of the Duke de Enghien by order of Napoleon I in 1804. History is littered with "official" versions that have very little to do with the truth.
Your entire point in this thread seems to be that there wasn't a conspiracy simply because it can't be proven there was one. I agree that a conspiracy can't be proven with the evidence available today but I disagree that this justifies the conclusion that there wasn't a conspiracy.
-
After 55 years, was somebody else pulling Oswald?s strings? It?s unlikely as time passes whether this sole question will ever be answered. I, for one doubt it. History has recorded LHO as the one shooter. I agree with this to a 99% certainty. That 1% remains elusive.
If he acted alone, what was his motive?
-
If he acted alone, what was his motive?
Killers with No Discernible Motive
https://m.ranker.com/list/killers-without-motives/katherine-ripley
-
Killers with No Discernible Motive
https://m.ranker.com/list/killers-without-motives/katherine-ripley
Is that your way of saying that you don't know the answer to the question?
-
Oswald qualified as a Marine sharpshooter. It is my belief, and mine only perhaps the scope played no role in the assassination. Oswald likely new the sites provided him with more accuracy and the final head shot at 88 yards on a downward trajectory was not terribly difficult for a sharpshooter. Yet, this is but one piece of the puzzle. I for one don?t look at only one piece. I?ve examined the totality of ALL the evidence assembled. Unfortunately, many CT?s, I?m not saying you, examine ?evidence? to confirm their own biased theory at the expense of understanding Oswald and who and what he represented.
Not your belief alone. I agree, the iron sights were probably used by Oswald.
The company that sold the rifles testified that the scope was not zero sighted. It was just slapped on the rifle. For an extra cost of only about $ 5.00, they would be losing money with every sale if they zero sighted the scopes.
And why would a company executive testify that their product was worse than it really was? It would serve no purpose if they were just trying to implicate Oswald. If that was the case, they would say the scopes were sighted.
Oswald was trained in the Marines to use iron sights. He never was trained to use a scope. As far as we know he never had used a rifle with a scope before he got that rifle.
Oswald was trained to hit targets at 200 yards, 300 yards and 500 yards. And he was pretty good at it. He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do. He should be able to hit a person at 88 yards, the longest shot taken on November 22?
Why order a rifle with a scope? Why keep the scope once he discovered (from practice shots or missing General Walker) it was not zero sighted and not useful for aiming?
A possible reason is because he thought it looked cool. It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin. He might like to keep the scope on for the same reason he wanted to be photographed with the rifle wearing black. And take time to put on the same black sweater before appearing before the world press, and Jack Ruby. It is not always wise to be overly focused on image.
And he was a dangerous assassin. With an M-1 at 200, 300 and 500 yards at a stationary target. Or I would guess a Carcano at 200 yards at a stationary target. And even a moving target, with a Carcano, provided it was under 100 yards away and moving mostly directly away from him at 8 mph.
Curiously, the WC commission, most investigations and to this day, most LNers believe (I think) that the scope was probably used. This is the most significant error on the LN side.
-
Not your belief alone. I agree, the iron sights were probably used by Oswald.
The company that sold the rifles testified that the scope was not zero sighted. It was just slapped on the rifle. For an extra cost of only about $ 5.00, they would be losing money with every sale if they zero sighted the scopes.
And why would a company executive testify that their product was worse than it really was? It would serve no purpose if they were just trying to implicate Oswald. If that was the case, they would say the scopes were sighted.
Oswald was trained in the Marines to use iron sights. He never was trained to use a scope. As far as we know he never had used a rifle with a scope before he got that rifle.
Oswald was trained to hit targets at 200 yards, 300 yards and 500 yards. And he was pretty good at it. He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do. He should be able to hit a person at 88 yards, the longest shot taken on November 22?
Why order a rifle with a scope? Why keep the scope once he discovered (from practice shots or missing General Walker) it was not zero sighted and not useful for aiming?
A possible reason is because he thought it looked cool. It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin. He might like to keep the scope on for the same reason he wanted to be photographed with the rifle wearing black. And take time to put on the same black sweater before appearing before the world press, and Jack Ruby. It is not always wise to be overly focused on image.
And he was a dangerous assassin. With an M-1 at 200, 300 and 500 yards at a stationary target. Or I would guess a Carcano at 200 yards at a stationary target. And even a moving target, with a Carcano, provided it was under 100 yards away and moving mostly directly away from him at 8 mph.
Curiously, the WC commission, most investigations and to this day, most LNers believe (I think) that the scope was probably used. This is the most significant error on the LN side.
Okay....nothing means anything, case closed, I got it, thankyouverymuch!
The WC Report indicates a troubling slice, similar to a segment of a modern CAT scan, confirming, YES, THIS IS HOW
IT REALLY WAS...beneath the thin veneer most Americans assume as reassurance of a law abiding, "do the right thing,"
social environment. If you go in with a similar preconceived notion, you predictably come out with a nothing to see, here,
POV. Leave your curiousity at the door!
Vs. actual facts...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibraryCard.jpg)
1. No Title, pg 2 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137473&relPageId=2&search=mantooth)
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi
CHARACTER OF CASE I TSMV TITLE OF CASE a JOHN CESAR GROSSI, aka; ROY LEE MANTOOTH REPORT MADE BY SA JAMES M. SMITH TYPED BY dak FEDERAL-BUREAU OF INVL STIGATION
2. No Title, pg 4 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137473&relPageId=4&search=mantooth)
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi
AQ 26-23451 Bureau File #: 26-419514 Title: JOHN CESAR GROSSI; ROY LEE MANTOOTH Character: INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN MOTOR VEHICLE Synopsis:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=29053767
Fleta L. Ryder Mantooth
Fleta was the daughter of Homer Richard and Magdalena Jeanetta (Baehr) Ryder and raised with one brother and six sisters. She married Roy Lee Mantooth December 13, 1963, in Albany, Texas. He preceded her in death on March 10, 1979.
During World War II she built B-29's and B-17's in Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas. She worked for U.S. Brass in assembly for 20 years and most recently for Olney I.S.D. in food services. She was a member of the Southside Baptist Church and the Cross Country Emmaus Community.
She moved to Olney from Abilene, Texas in 1990. She was preceded in death by two sisters, Fern Boyett and Mardella Cox.
https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bbirth_year%3A1956-1957~%20%2Bmother_givenname%3Alucille~%20%2Bmother _surname%3Aryder~ (https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bbirth_year%3A1956-1957~%20%2Bmother_givenname%3Alucille~%20%2Bmother _surname%3Aryder~)
Glenn Lewis Bowen
Texas Birth Index
Name Glenn Lewis Bowen
Event Type Birth
Event Date 11 Oct 1956
Event Place Dallas, Texas
Gender Male
Father's Name Jack Leslie Bowen
Mother's Name Fleta Lucille Ryde
At time of death she was survived by one son, Glenn Lewis Mantooth and wife, Nicole of Abilene, Texas; two daughters, Dixie Kirby and husband DeWayne of Olney, Texas and Gypsie Fomby and husband Dale of Clyde, Texas; one brother, Dial Ryder of Irving, Texas;......
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/AssassinationsDeepEvents/AssassinationsDeepEvents.htm
The Assassinations of the 1960s as "Deep Events"
Peter Dale Scott October 17, 2008
....This is what Malcolm H. Price told the Warren Commission about ?Oswald? at the Dallas rifle range:
the first time that I saw this person was in September, ?.I have heard that he couldn?t drive, but he was driving that day?and he came down and inquired if there was anyone who could sight a scope, a telescope on a rifle, and I told him that I could, and he said, well ? he had one that he had mounted and boresighted but it hadn?t been fired on a range?.And he fired three shots and he scored bull?s eye with all three ? a very tight pattern. (10 WH 370, emphasis added)
For various reasons the Warren Report rejected this testimony. However there was independent corroboration of Price?s story. At least five other witnesses claimed to have seen Oswald at a rifle range; and one of them, Sterling Wood, established in conversation with Oswald that Oswald was firing a ?6.5 Italian carbine? with a ?four-power scope.? (26 WH 368). A witness from the Irving Sports Store, Dial Ryder, supplied a purported work ticket with the name Oswald on it, which was an order to have a rifle ?mounted? and boresighted? (WR 315 (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0170a.htm)). [5] Yet another witness, Mrs. Edith Whitworth, told the FBI that she had directed Oswald to Ryder?s store (26 WH 701 (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0369a.htm); cf. WR 316).
I have argued that all this was concatenated false testimony, to support the early notion, later rejected, that Oswald had killed Kennedy with a gun he had used earlier in the Soviet Union. [6] The more we believe that the Warren Commission was right to reject this concatenated testimony, the more the rejected stories constitute evidence of a conspiracy.,,,,
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137308&search=mantooth#relPageId=6&tab=page
......(In 1970, the FBI seems not to understand that Bowen/Grossi, now aka Bolen, is described as paying child support by
Roy Lee Mantooth in the form of a stolen camper trailer. The point is that 7 years after the assassination, Bowen/Grossi was still in contact with Dial Ryder's sister and her husband Roy Lee Mantooth.)....
-
Okay....nothing means anything, case closed, I got it, thankyouverymuch!
The WC Report indicates a troubling slice, similar to a segment of a modern CAT scan, confirming, YES, THIS IS HOW
IT REALLY WAS...beneath the thin veneer most Americans assume as reassurance of a law abiding, "do the right thing,"
social environment. If you go in with a similar preconceived notion, you predictably come out with a nothing to see, here,
POV. Leave your curiousity at the door!
Vs. actual facts...
.....
The FBI interviews the other Bowen of our mystery saga. Please point to an example of anyone named in the WC report
who was charged with a crime of making untruthful statements to the FBI or in sworn testimony taken by the WC?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0369a.htm
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIbornChester.jpg)
....and, in the fullness of time.:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/32875262
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2009/11/32875262_123181483394.jpg)
Tom Scully posted 11 July, 2015
...I have two questions.
What could the circumstances have been that resulted in the real John Howard Bowen's changed d.o.b. from the
date he put on his 1918 draft registration, January 14, 1880, which happened to be the same d.o.b., at the same place, Chester, PA, as the birthdate and place furnished by the John Howard Bowen to the FBI in Feb, 1964, to the birthdate on John Howard Bowen's January 31, 1962 Richmond County, NC death certificate, d.o.b. January 4, 1878?...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenDraft1918.jpg)
FBI reported in CE 2443:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0301a.htm
.....but furnished him with a card reflecting the
following data :
Name : JOHN HOWARD BOWEN
Born : January 14, 1880
Father : JAMES A, BOWEN
Mother : EDITH MONTGOMERY
Place of Birth : Chester, Pennsylvania
File Number : D-869-1880
Filed : March 6, 1956
From the Chester, PA Times....note that the name of J. Howard Bowen's wife is the same as on this 1962 death certificate:
https://newspaperarchive.com/chester-times-may-18-1915-p-5/
Chester Times Newspaper Archive: May 18, 1915 - Page 5
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenWifeChester1915.jpg)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/32875265/fannie-bowen/photo
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenWife1934Obit.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowen1962TerminalNCdeathCert.jpg)
-
The FBI interviews the other Bowen of our mystery saga. Please point to an example of anyone named in the WC report
who was charged with a crime of making untruthful statements to the FBI or in sworn testimony taken by the WC?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0369a.htm
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIbornChester.jpg)
....and, in the fullness of time.:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/32875262
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2009/11/32875262_123181483394.jpg)(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenDraft1918.jpg)
From the Chester, PA Times....note that the name of J. Howard Bowen's wife is the same as on this 1962 death certificate:(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowen1962TerminalNCdeathCert.jpg)
JOHN HOWARD BOWEN was interviewed February 8 1964, and he furnished the following information...
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/32875262
Who says that "dead men tell no tales".... :D
The FBI was able to talk to Bowen in 1964, even though Bowen had died in 1962....
-
Oswald was trained to hit targets at 200 yards, 300 yards and 500 yards. And he was pretty good at it. He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do.
Yeah, in 1956. Cherry-pick much?
Why order a rifle with a scope? Why keep the scope once he discovered (from practice shots or missing General Walker) it was not zero sighted and not useful for aiming?
A possible reason is because he thought it looked cool.
That sounds more like "contrived excuse" than "possible reason".
It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin. He might like to keep the scope on for the same reason he wanted to be photographed with the rifle wearing black. And take time to put on the same black sweater before appearing before the world press, and Jack Ruby.
Or he asked for a sweater because it was cold.
-
"It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin."
ahh No. It looks like the weapon of a fumbling amateur at best.
saying the same person who couldn't hit a sitting target (walker) pulled off that shooting job from the TSBD is inconsistent to say the least.
why?
The target - one was right wing, one was left.
The shooting - one is amateurish, one is world class.
-
Not your belief alone. I agree, the iron sights were probably used by Oswald.
The company that sold the rifles testified that the scope was not zero sighted. It was just slapped on the rifle. For an extra cost of only about $ 5.00, they would be losing money with every sale if they zero sighted the scopes.
And why would a company executive testify that their product was worse than it really was? It would serve no purpose if they were just trying to implicate Oswald. If that was the case, they would say the scopes were sighted.
Oswald was trained in the Marines to use iron sights. He never was trained to use a scope. As far as we know he never had used a rifle with a scope before he got that rifle.
Oswald was trained to hit targets at 200 yards, 300 yards and 500 yards. And he was pretty good at it. He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do. He should be able to hit a person at 88 yards, the longest shot taken on November 22?
Why order a rifle with a scope? Why keep the scope once he discovered (from practice shots or missing General Walker) it was not zero sighted and not useful for aiming?
A possible reason is because he thought it looked cool. It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin. He might like to keep the scope on for the same reason he wanted to be photographed with the rifle wearing black. And take time to put on the same black sweater before appearing before the world press, and Jack Ruby. It is not always wise to be overly focused on image.
And he was a dangerous assassin. With an M-1 at 200, 300 and 500 yards at a stationary target. Or I would guess a Carcano at 200 yards at a stationary target. And even a moving target, with a Carcano, provided it was under 100 yards away and moving mostly directly away from him at 8 mph.
Curiously, the WC commission, most investigations and to this day, most LNers believe (I think) that the scope was probably used. This is the most significant error on the LN side.
He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do.
Perhaps you should check with the Marine Corps.... I believe you'll find that "Sharpshooter" designation is the MINIMUM qualification that is acceptable for a Marine recruit.
Are you sure that you're not misspelling your name? The I-O-T- may be correct but I'm not sure about the preceding letters.
-
Not your belief alone. I agree, the iron sights were probably used by Oswald.
The company that sold the rifles testified that the scope was not zero sighted. It was just slapped on the rifle. For an extra cost of only about $ 5.00, they would be losing money with every sale if they zero sighted the scopes.
And why would a company executive testify that their product was worse than it really was? It would serve no purpose if they were just trying to implicate Oswald. If that was the case, they would say the scopes were sighted.
Oswald was trained in the Marines to use iron sights. He never was trained to use a scope. As far as we know he never had used a rifle with a scope before he got that rifle.
Oswald was trained to hit targets at 200 yards, 300 yards and 500 yards. And he was pretty good at it. He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do. He should be able to hit a person at 88 yards, the longest shot taken on November 22?
Why order a rifle with a scope? Why keep the scope once he discovered (from practice shots or missing General Walker) it was not zero sighted and not useful for aiming?
A possible reason is because he thought it looked cool. It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin. He might like to keep the scope on for the same reason he wanted to be photographed with the rifle wearing black. And take time to put on the same black sweater before appearing before the world press, and Jack Ruby. It is not always wise to be overly focused on image.
And he was a dangerous assassin. With an M-1 at 200, 300 and 500 yards at a stationary target. Or I would guess a Carcano at 200 yards at a stationary target. And even a moving target, with a Carcano, provided it was under 100 yards away and moving mostly directly away from him at 8 mph.
Curiously, the WC commission, most investigations and to this day, most LNers believe (I think) that the scope was probably used. This is the most significant error on the LN side.
Why keep the scope once he discovered (from practice shots or missing General Walker) it was not zero sighted and not useful for aiming?
A possible reason is because he thought it looked cool. It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin.
Yes you're right..."It looked like the weapon of a dangerous assassin." And that's exactly what the cretins who were setting Lee up thought.... Grandma, what a dangerous looking rifle you have....Yes, it's all the better to mislead you with, my dear...
You LNer's love fairy tales... So I'm sure you'll remember Little Red Ridinghood.....
-
Perhaps you should check with the Marine Corps.... I believe you'll find that "Sharpshooter" designation is the minimum qualification that is acceptable for a Marine recruit.
I thought that was Marksman.
-
I thought that was Marksman.
Marksman is the lowest rating...and it is unacceptable in the Marine corps....A recruit cannot graduate from boot camp with less than a Sharpshooter rating.
-
He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do.
Perhaps you should check with the Marine Corps.... I believe you'll find that "Sharpshooter" designation is the minimum qualification that is acceptable for a Marine recruit.
The three Marine categories are:
1. Marksman (lowest)
2. Sharpshooter (medium)
3. Expert (expert)
In 1956, Oswald qualified as ?Sharpshooter?, the medium category. The same category as another Marine, Charles Whitman, who went crazy and killed about 16 people with a rifle in 1966. The longest range was over 400 yards. Like Oswald, it had been about 7 years since he had received his Marine training.
Most Marines only qualify at the lowest rating, ?Marksman?, which is still very good. One must still prove one is accurate at 200, 300 and 500 yards. In 1959, without retraining, Oswald scored as ?Marksman? which is a good score, although run of the mill for a Marine.
Maybe you should be the one to go check your facts and review the shooting categories of being a Marine.
-
Oswald was trained to hit targets at 200 yards, 300 yards and 500 yards. And he was pretty good at it. He qualified as a sharpshooter, something most Marines were not about to do. He should be able to hit a person at 88 yards, the longest shot taken on November 22?
Yeah, in 1956. Cherry-pick much?
Charles Whitman in 1966, killed 16 people, the longest from a range of over 400 yards. Like Oswald, he had qualified as a Marine ?Sharpshooter? seven years earlier. And Whitman used a rifle he had just purchased that day and had never used before and was unfamiliar with.
Question:
Does it being seven years since Oswald had received his rifle training mean he was no longer accurate by 1963?
-
Marksman is the lowest rating...and it is unacceptable in the Marine corps....A recruit cannot graduate from boot camp with less than a Sharpshooter rating.
False. In 1956, most Maines who successfully qualified did so as ?Marksman?, the lowest of three acceptable ratings. To this day ?Marksman?, ?Sharpshooter? and ?Expert? qualify one for being a Marine.
-
The 1977 letter of Billy Joe Lord and the brazen writing and TV debate from Nicholas B Lemann indicate there
was some sort of a tug of war ongoing, and this evidence is of cover up at the highest reaches....cover up of....what?
Nicholas Lemann's father Thomas, uncle Stephen, and step-aunt Baldwin are all mentioned in this 1990
obit of his step-grandmother, widow of his grandfather, Monte Lemann:
....and who can forget that Frank Pace joined the board of Time, Inc. just after Henry Luce's sister's husband,former publisher of Time Maurice "Tex" Moore and his law partner Roz Gilpatric negotiated the merger of Pace's General Dynamics
with "Henry Crown, Inc.?"
April 22, 1960 WSJ:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6936911103_a23b20874a_b.jpg)
and so it goes......
-
The three Marine categories are:
1. Marksman (lowest)
2. Sharpshooter (medium)
3. Expert (expert)
In 1956, Oswald qualified as ?Sharpshooter?, the medium category. The same category as another Marine, Charles Whitman, who went crazy and killed about 16 people with a rifle in 1966. The longest range was over 400 yards. Like Oswald, it had been about 7 years since he had received his Marine training.
Most Marines only qualify at the lowest rating, ?Marksman?, which is still very good. One must still prove one is accurate at 200, 300 and 500 yards. In 1959, without retraining, Oswald scored as ?Marksman? which is a good score, although run of the mill for a Marine.
Maybe you should be the one to go check your facts and review the shooting categories of being a Marine.
In 1957 any Marine recruit who fired less than sharpshooter was a "spombleprofglidnoctobunsbird"
-
The three Marine categories are:
1. Marksman (lowest)
2. Sharpshooter (medium)
3. Expert (expert)
In 1956, Oswald qualified as ?Sharpshooter?, the medium category. The same category as another Marine, Charles Whitman, who went crazy and killed about 16 people with a rifle in 1966. The longest range was over 400 yards. Like Oswald, it had been about 7 years since he had received his Marine training.
Disingenuous. Whitman had been out of the Marines for 19 months. Oswald had been out of the Marines for 4 years. And Oswald barely qualified as Marksman (by one point) 4 months before his discharge.
-
whitman was an expert marksman before he joined up
guns from childhood
chalk and cheese
-
Explain to everyone please how Oswald can produce an EXIT wound on the REAR of JFK's head and an entry wound to his throat from BEHIND. If you believe the Sociopath's commission, three shots were fired from behind by Lee "Hardly" Oswald. Sorry, it's physically impossible. Let's lay it out for you: Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
-
Explain to everyone please how Oswald can produce an EXIT wound on the REAR of JFK's head and an entry wound to his throat from BEHIND. If you believe the Sociopath's commission, three shots were fired from behind by Lee "Hardly" Oswald. Sorry, it's physically impossible. Let's lay it out for you: Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
Secret Service agent Clint Hill was the first person to see JFK's head wound, when he climbed aboard the Lincoln just seconds after the fatal shot. Hill said that he saw a small bullet hole in JFK's right temple just forward of his right ear at the hairline, and a massive blowout on the rear of JFK's skull.....
-
How's that " one remaining question " working for you Paul ? 99% , sounds like a slam dunk for you . Our 1% is you .
-
It seems to me that Lee was being misguided ..... so yes somebody else was pulling the strings that had him acting the puppet....
But he was NOT being coerced, or forced. He was being misled and thought that he was doing something entirely different than what the puppet master was doing. Viewed from Lee's side of the staged event he was being portrayed as a friend of Fidel Castro's revolution and was taking a pot shot at JFK....But from the other side of the stage the puppet master had set up a hit team to actually murder the President.....
Yours remains a theory.
-
So, what's your point? That the Kennedy murder is already part of history and that Oswald is in the history books as the lone nut killer?
Does that somehow make you feel good?
If that's the case, you might want to read up on the Reichtag fire and Marinus van der Lubbe in 1933 or, the execution of the Duke de Enghien by order of Napoleon I in 1804. History is littered with "official" versions that have very little to do with the truth.
Your entire point in this thread seems to be that there wasn't a conspiracy simply because it can't be proven there was one. I agree that a conspiracy can't be proven with the evidence available today but I disagree that this justifies the conclusion that there wasn't a conspiracy.
I agree that a conspiracy can't be proven in terms of who exactly was involved in the planning and execution, but I think researchers have proven that there was a cover-up.
A cover-up means that there was a conspiracy.
-
I agree that a conspiracy can't be proven in terms of who exactly was involved in the planning and execution, but I think researchers have proven that there was a cover-up.
A cover-up means that there was a conspiracy.
Which specific researchers have proven a cover-up? What were the cover-up activities? Who authorized the cover-up(s)? We?re the cover-up(s) you claim occurred nefarious to protect those you believe took part in the assassination or to protect America and its citizens. Be specific. Let?s see if you can answer a question without copy and pasting.
-
Yours remains a theory.
A theory just like the THEORY that Lee Oswald dashed from the sixth floor window to the second floor lunchroom in less than 90 seconds and was unseen by at least six people who could not have failed to notice a man galloping down the noisy wooden stairs.
-
After 55 years, was somebody else pulling Oswald?s strings? It?s unlikely as time passes whether this sole question will ever be answered. I, for one doubt it. History has recorded LHO as the one shooter. I agree with this to a 99% certainty. That 1% remains elusive.
Strange that You would Not use the word LONE to describe the Shooter and instead employ the word "One" shooter. "One" shooter atop the Records Bld, + "One" shooter behind the picket fence, + "One" shooter inside the TSBD, etc. Your word usage displays more than your admitted 1% doubt.
-
Explain to everyone please how Oswald can produce an EXIT wound on the REAR of JFK's head and an entry wound to his throat from BEHIND. If you believe the Sociopath's commission, three shots were fired from behind by Lee "Hardly" Oswald. Sorry, it's physically impossible. Let's lay it out for you: Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
With your "frontal wound" discrepancy...
-
Strange that You would Not use the word LONE to describe the Shooter and instead employ the word "One" shooter. "One" shooter atop the Records Bld, + "One" shooter behind the picket fence, + "One" shooter inside the TSBD, etc. Your word usage displays more than your admitted 1% doubt.
YOUR word usage continues to reveal your IQ as smaller than your shoe size.
-
Explain to everyone please how Oswald can produce an EXIT wound on the REAR of JFK's head and an entry wound to his throat from BEHIND. If you believe the Sociopath's commission, three shots were fired from behind by Lee "Hardly" Oswald. Sorry, it's physically impossible. Let's lay it out for you: Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
It's easy to explain... Just put the big shiny badges of the AUTHORITIES in front of the trusting gullible suckers, and those pissants will believe anything...LBJ
-
Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
It's easy to explain... Just put the big shiny badges of the AUTHORITIES in front of the trusting gullible suckers, and those pissants will believe anything...LBJ
Trump is the gov't and the trusting gullible suckers are his base.
Congratulations; finally you get something right.
I'm a DFH
-
YOUR word usage continues to reveal your IQ as smaller than your shoe size.
Non-Responsive
-
Parkland witnesses unanimously report the FRONTAL wound of entrance in JFK's throat and a massive wound to the right rear of the president's skull. How do you explain those bizarre photos in the public record alleged to be of JFK? How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
It's easy to explain... Just put the big shiny badges of the AUTHORITIES in front of the trusting gullible suckers, and those pissants will believe anything...LBJ
LBJ learned this lesson from his hero...Josef Goebbels...Hitler's propaganda minister.