JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 15, 2020, 01:00:40 PM
-
In 1997, thanks to the opening of Soviet archives, we learned that just a few weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie Kennedy secretly told Soviet leaders they believed that President Kennedy had been “felled by domestic opponents” through “a large political conspiracy,” “a right-wing conspiracy.”
Canadian historian Timothy Naftali and Russian scholar Aleksandr Fursenko discovered Bobby and Jackie Kennedy’s message in top-secret Soviet intelligence archives and discussed it in their 1997 book One Hell of a Gamble: The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis (pp. 405-407). Bobby and Jackie sent the message through a close family friend, William Walton. James Douglass discusses this historic message in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis edition, 2011):
In early December 1963, William Walton traveled to Moscow on behalf of Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy to convey a secret message to the Soviet leaders about President Kennedy’s assassination. Walton used an already scheduled trip, at JFK’s request “to visit Moscow to meet Soviet artists,” as a cover for his revised purpose of telling the Russians what the Kennedys thought lay behind Dallas. The Kennedys’ message to the Russians was retained in top-secret Soviet intelligence archives. It was discovered in the 1990s by Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, who then reported it in their 1997 book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, One Hell of a Gamble.
Walton conveyed the Kennedys’ secret assessment of the assassination to Georgi Bolshakov, the journalist/intelligence agent who had been their most trusted Soviet confidant in the months around the time of the Missile Crisis. In Washington, working out of the Soviet Embassy, Georgi Bolshakov had met repeatedly with Attorney General Robert Kennedy in secret to convey questions and concerns between Chairman Khrushchev and President Kennedy. In Moscow after the assassination, he was in a corresponding position to relay Walton’s discreet information to Chairman Khrushchev.
The Kennedys informed Bolshakov through Walton that “despite Oswald’s connections to the communist world,” they believed “there was a large political conspiracy behind Oswald’s rifle” that came from a different source. In their view, “the President was felled by domestic opponents.” He had been, the Kennedys thought, “the victim of a right-wing conspiracy.”
Walton added that the Russian leaders should have no illusions that Lyndon Johnson would continue JFK’s work for peace. Johnson, Walton said, would be “incapable of realizing Kennedy’s unfinished plans.” (JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 471-472)
Bobby and Jackie’s message is especially remarkable because it was sent at a time when the federal government and nearly all news reports were adamantly proclaiming that JFK’s death was nothing but the work of a Marxist nutjob who had acted totally alone, the deranged act of a disturbed loner who had once defected to the Soviet Union and who had defended Castro’s communist regime.
-
The conspiracy was two-fold: One, kill JFK and make it appear that Castro was behind it. Two, invade Cuba and overthrow Castro.
If JFK was killed by a shot to the head from the Dal-Tex building, and LHO was killed by a Dallas policeman while "escaping", it may have worked!
-
The conspiracy was two-fold: One, kill JFK and make it appear that Castro was behind it. Two, invade Cuba and overthrow Castro.
I think James Douglass provides the clearest picture of the goals of the plotters and why two of their main goals were thwarted. LBJ and Hoover simply were not willing to follow the plotters' script and use the assassination as an excuse to invade Cuba and/or launch a preemptive strike on Russia. But, by killing JFK, the plotters were able to carry out other policies that they also viewed as crucial and that they knew JFK would have blocked: vastly escalating the war in Vietnam, ending back-channel talks with Castro, and overthrowing Sukarno in Indonesia.
If JFK was killed by a shot to the head from the Dal-Tex building, and LHO was killed by a Dallas policeman while "escaping", it may have worked!
It is interesting that you mention the Dal-Tex Building. Several Dealey Plaza witnesses thought shots came from the Dal-Tex Building, and a a 1999 reenactment in Dealey Plaza done with lasers found that one of the acknowledged hits on Kennedy could have come from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building.
-
In 1997, thanks to the opening of Soviet archives, we learned that just a few weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie Kennedy secretly told Soviet leaders they believed that President Kennedy had been “felled by domestic opponents” through “a large political conspiracy,” “a right-wing conspiracy.”
Canadian historian Timothy Naftali and Russian scholar Aleksandr Fursenko discovered Bobby and Jackie Kennedy’s message in top-secret Soviet intelligence archives and discussed it in their 1997 book One Hell of a Gamble: The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis (pp. 344-346). Bobby and Jackie sent the message through a close family friend, William Walton. James Douglass discusses this historic message in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis edition, 2011):
Bobby and Jackie’s message is especially remarkable because it was sent at a time when the federal government and nearly all news reports were adamantly proclaiming that JFK’s death was nothing but the work of a Marxist nutjob who had acted totally alone, the deranged act of a disturbed loner who had once defected to the Soviet Union and who had defended Castro’s communist regime.
So RFK and Jackie BELIEVED in a right wing conspiracy. History has taught us belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.
-
So RFK and Jackie BELIEVED in a right wing conspiracy. History has taught us belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.
So why do you suppose RFK and Jackie believed that? What do you suppose the basis of their belief? Just wild guessing?
And isn't it interesting that an internal KGB investigation into the assassination, whose findings were never supposed to be made public, likewise concluded that JFK had been killed by a right-wing conspiracy? Of course, we've known for years that the KGB became aware of the assassination plot by no later than the spring of 1963, that they feared that Russia would be scapegoated for it, and that they ordered Richard Case Nagell to persuade Oswald to drop out of it or to kill him if he would not drop out.
There is plenty of strong, solid evidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
-
So why do you suppose RFK and Jackie believed that? What do you suppose the basis of their belief? Just wild guessing?
And isn't it interesting that an internal KGB investigation into the assassination, whose findings were never supposed to be made public, likewise concluded that JFK had been killed by a right-wing conspiracy?
There is plenty of strong, solid evidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
Wrong. Again. Your need for confirmation bias notwithstanding, nothing you present EVER is hard, credible or corroborated with actual physical evidence. Yours is a belief system. You tell the readers what the KGB concluded and yet the readers have no idea how the KGB reached that conclusion. Yet, you buy it because it’s your belief system. Selling conspiracy is like shaving: if you don’t do it everyday, you’re a bum. I admire your tenacity. It ends there.
-
Wrong. Again. Your need for confirmation bias notwithstanding, nothing you present EVER is hard, credible or corroborated with actual physical evidence. Yours is a belief system. You tell the readers what the KGB concluded and yet the readers have no idea how the KGB reached that conclusion. Yet, you buy it because it’s your belief system. Selling conspiracy is like shaving: if you don’t do it everyday, you’re a bum. I admire your tenacity. It ends there.
What you have just described is the state of the lone-gunman theory and those who follow it.
Actually, there is hard physical evidence of conspiracy.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/physical.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/dent.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm
And, of course, we've known for years that the KGB became aware of the assassination plot by no later than the spring of 1963, that they feared that Russia would be scapegoated for it, and that they ordered Richard Case Nagell to persuade Oswald to drop out of it or to kill him if he would not drop out.
-
What you have just described is the state of the lone-gunman theory and those who follow it.
Actually, there is hard physical evidence of conspiracy.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/physical.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/dent.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment2.htm
And, of course, we've known for years that the KGB became aware of the assassination plot by no later than the spring of 1963, that they feared that Russia would be scapegoated for it, and that they ordered Richard Case Nagell to persuade Oswald to drop out of it or to kill him if he would not drop out.
I notice you declined to answer my question about why Bobby and Jackie believed a right-wing conspiracy had killed JFK. To judge from your verbiage, one gets the impression that you are saying they were merely guessing without any factual foundation.
Anything other than 57 year old garbage discussed thousands upon thousands of times throughout the years? Interesting that the majority of historians, doctors, forensic pathologists, wound ballistics experts totally disagree with you. Is that one more conspiracy? Btw, I have never ruled out a conspiracy. What I’ve maintained throughout the decades is simple: Oswald, to a 100% certainty fired 3 and only 3 shots hitting JFK twice from above and behind. End of shooting. Was another faction pulling his strings? 57 years later, I don’t know. You don’t know. I can’t prove it nor can you. The readers on this forum whether pro or con re: shooting are well read. Repeating theories discussed ad nauseam for 50+ does nothing for your case.
-
Anything other than 57 year old garbage discussed thousands upon thousands of times throughout the years? Interesting that the majority of historians, doctors, forensic pathologists, wound ballistics experts totally disagree with you.
Most of those folks are unaware of the evidence that has been developed in those fields by fellow experts over the last 20 years.
There is hard physical evidence of conspiracy, but if someone is determined not to believe in a conspiracy, they will float and cling to the most absurd explanations for that evidence to avoid admitting it, e.g., the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, the nick in the tie knot, the slits in the front of the shirt, the faked 6.5 mm fragment on the skull x-rays, the Harper Fragment, the clear indications of more than three shots in the Zapruder film.
Is that one more conspiracy? Btw, I have never ruled out a conspiracy. What I’ve maintained throughout the decades is simple: Oswald, to a 100% certainty fired 3 and only 3 shots hitting JFK twice from above and behind. End of shooting. Was another faction pulling his strings? 57 years later, I don’t know. You don’t know. I can’t prove it nor can you. The readers on this forum whether pro or con re: shooting are well read. Repeating theories discussed ad nauseam for 50+ does nothing for your case.
I notice you declined to answer my question about why Bobby and Jackie believed a right-wing conspiracy had killed JFK. To judge from your verbiage, one gets the impression that you are saying they were merely guessing without any reasonable foundation.
One of the reasons I created this thread is that most WC apologists posture as though anyone who rejects the WC's version of events can't think properly, lacks intelligence, is prone to believe wild theories, etc., etc. That's odd posturing coming from people who are part of a minority of only about 35% of the American people. You act like you are defending the mainstream view and that conspiracy theorists are the fringe element, when in fact you guys are in the distinct minority and are rejecting most of the conclusions of the last U.S. Government investigation into the assassination.
-
BTW, was the “message” Walton carried to Russia written or verbal?
-
Most of those folks are unaware of the evidence that has been developed in those fields by fellow experts over the last 20 years.
There is hard physical evidence of conspiracy, but if someone is determined not to believe in a conspiracy, they will float and cling to the most absurd explanations for that evidence to avoid admitting it, e.g., the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, the nick in the tie knot, the slits in the front of the shirt, the faked 6.5 mm fragment on the skull x-rays, the Harper Fragment, the clear indications of more than three shots in the Zapruder film.
I notice you declined to answer my question about why Bobby and Jackie believed a right-wing conspiracy had killed JFK. To judge from your verbiage, one gets the impression that you are saying they were merely guessing without any reasonable foundation.
One of the reasons I created this thread is that most WC apologists posture as though anyone who rejects the WC's version of events can't think properly, lacks intelligence, is prone to believe wild theories, etc., etc. That's odd posturing coming from people who are part of a minority of only about 35% of the American people. You act like you are defending the mainstream view and that conspiracy theorists are the fringe element, when in fact you guys are in the distinct minority and are rejecting most of the conclusions of the last U.S. Government investigation into the assassination.
The mainstream view as you call is written by historians not by conspiracy advocates. Have you ever given reasonable thought to why CT’s cannot come together with a cogent and logical theory? Simple. CT’s, yourself included all interpret the actual evidence differently leading to different conclusions. It’s just not that difficult.
-
BTW, was the “message” Walton carried to Russia written or verbal?
It appears to have been verbal. However, Bolshakov wrote a memorandum of record of his conversation with Walton after he spoke with him that day, 12/9/63, and Fursenko and Naftali interviewed Bolshakov in January 1989 to confirm the memo's contents (One Hell of a Gamble, p. 476 notes 20, 22).
Douglass omitted some juicy additional information. Walton said, "Dallas was the ideal location for such a crime. . . . Perhaps there was only one assassin, but he did not act alone," and "The Kennedy clan considered the selection of Johnson a dreadful mistake" (pp. 406-407).
I should add that Walton would not have been one to twist Bobby and Jackie's words. Walton was a close, longtime friend of the family. During the 1960 election, Walton worked full time for JFK and Bobby. JFK and Jackie watched the 1960 election returns with only one person: Walton. JFK stayed in Walton's home in DC during the final transition weeks until he moved into the White House. Walton frequently spent long hours with the Kennedys in the White House. So it is no surprise that Bobby and Jackie chose him to convey their views on the assassination to the Soviet leadership.
The mainstream view as you call is written by historians not by conspiracy advocates. Have you ever given reasonable thought to why CT’s cannot come together with a cogent and logical theory? Simple. CT’s, yourself included all interpret the actual evidence differently leading to different conclusions. It’s just not that difficult.
The "mainstream" view of the American people is that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. That was also the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last government body to formally investigate the case. And there are plenty of historians who reject the lone-gunman theory.
Have you ever given reasonable thought to why CT’s cannot come together with a cogent and logical theory? Simple. CT’s, yourself included all interpret the actual evidence differently leading to different conclusions. It’s just not that difficult.
That's a hoot. Lone-gunman theorists are all over the map among themselves about the Tague wounding, the autopsy evidence, when Kennedy was first hit, the cause of Kennedy's backward headsnap, the 6.5 mm fragment, the additional fragment that McDonnell identified on the rear of the skull in the autopsy x-rays, etc., etc. etc.
There is wide agreement among conspiracy theorists about the basic outline of the assassination plot. The fact that there is robust debate about some aspects of the plot is a sign of vitality, analysis, and ongoing research.
-
It appears to have been verbal. However, Bolshakov wrote a memorandum of record of his conversation with Walton after he spoke with him that day, 12/9/63, and Fursenko and Naftali interviewed Bolshakov in January 1989 to confirm the memo's contents (One Hell of a Gamble, p. 476 notes 20, 22).
Douglass omitted some juicy additional information. Walton said, "Dallas was the ideal location for such a crime. . . . Perhaps there was only one assassin, but he did not act alone," and "The Kennedy clan considered the selection of Johnson a dreadful mistake" (pp. 406-407).
I should add that Walton would not have been one to twist Bobby and Jackie's words. Walton was a close, longtime friend of the family. During the 1960 election, Walton worked full time for JFK and Bobby. JFK and Jackie watched the 1960 election returns with only one person: Walton. JFK stayed in Walton's home in DC during the final transition weeks until he moved into the White House. Walton frequently spent long hours with the Kennedys in the White House. So it is no surprise that Bobby and Jackie chose him to convey their views on the assassination to the Soviet leadership.
The "mainstream" view of the American people is that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. That was also the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last government body to formally investigate the case. And there are plenty of historians who reject the lone-gunman theory.
That's a hoot. Lone-gunman theorists are all over the map among themselves about the Tague wounding, the autopsy evidence, when Kennedy was first hit, the cause of Kennedy's backward headsnap, the 6.5 mm fragment, the additional fragment that McDonnell identified on the rear of the skull in the autopsy x-rays, etc., etc. etc.
There is wide agreement among conspiracy theorists about the basic outline of the assassination plot. The fact that there is robust debate about some aspects of the plot is a sign of vitality, analysis, and ongoing research.
A Trump response. Avoid the question and redirect. LN’s, as a group agree with the findings of the WC that Oswald was the shooter. How many LN’s might consider a conspiracy was possible, I have no idea. Robust debate? You’re being kind. Put 50 CT’s in a room and you’ll get 50 different theories many based on the hundreds Of books written each promising the correct solution. The mainstream view of the American people matters not. You surely know this yet you keep repeating it as if that makes it fact. You’re guilty of doing the very thing politicians and conspiracy types routinely do. Repeat something often enough and you hope people believe it. 330 million Americans. 197 million over 21. How many of those 197 million can name even 5 people involved in the assassination or investigations? Ask one of these 197 million people what a carcano is they’ll likely guess an Italian sports car. My point is there is no ongoing research. Any forum, blog, no different than this one. 30-40-50 year old theories and the CT’s go at each other like sharks. NARA has released 99% of all JFK related docs. There no place for CT’s to go.
-
In 1997, thanks to the opening of Soviet archives, we learned that just a few weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie Kennedy secretly told Soviet leaders they believed that President Kennedy had been “felled by domestic opponents” through “a large political conspiracy,” “a right-wing conspiracy.”
Canadian historian Timothy Naftali and Russian scholar Aleksandr Fursenko discovered Bobby and Jackie Kennedy’s message in top-secret Soviet intelligence archives and discussed it in their 1997 book One Hell of a Gamble: The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis (pp. 405-407). Bobby and Jackie sent the message through a close family friend, William Walton. James Douglass discusses this historic message in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis edition, 2011):
Bobby and Jackie’s message is especially remarkable because it was sent at a time when the federal government and nearly all news reports were adamantly proclaiming that JFK’s death was nothing but the work of a Marxist nutjob who had acted totally alone, the deranged act of a disturbed loner who had once defected to the Soviet Union and who had defended Castro’s communist regime.
Dear Mike,
Funny ... that's what the world class humanitarian, Nikita Khrushchev, told columnist Drew Pearson at a party in Cairo six months after the assassination, i.e., that the "Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex" aka "The Deep State" aka "Southern Oilmen and The Minutemen" (or some-such thing) had killed JFK!
Must be true, then, huh?
-- MWT ;)
PS ... And that's what Kremlin-loyal triple-agent Boris Orehkov (FBI's SHAMROCK) tried to lead J. Edgar Hoover to believe in 1966, by first getting him to believe that the Kremlin had actually undertaken a long-term investigation of the assassination right after it happened. LOL!
PPS What are your thoughts on Vladimir Putin, the Red Army Faction-supporting former chief of station of the "backwater" Dresden, East Germany, First Chief Directorate (today's SVR) base?
"Nice guy who's just trying to fend off the fascistic West's globalists"?
-
I think James Douglass provides the clearest picture of the goals of the plotters and why two of their main goals were thwarted. LBJ and Hoover simply were not willing to follow the plotters' script and use the assassination as an excuse to invade Cuba and/or launch a preemptive strike on Russia. But, by killing JFK, the plotters were able to carry out other policies that they also viewed as crucial and that they knew JFK would have blocked: vastly escalating the war in Vietnam, ending back-channel talks with Castro, and overthrowing Sukarno in Indonesia.
It is interesting that you mention the Dal-Tex Building. Several Dealey Plaza witnesses thought shots came from the Dal-Tex Building, and a bullet fired from that building could have missed Kennedy by a few inches and struck the curb near Tague. In 1977, a rusted bullet cartridge was found on the roof of the Dal-Tex Building.
Agreed on Douglass, LBJ/JEH saw through the too-obvious clues quickly. Katzenbach documented same in a memo to Moyers:
"Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat, too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.)," he wrote. "The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced."
-
In 1997, thanks to the opening of Soviet archives, we learned that just a few weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie Kennedy secretly told Soviet leaders they believed that President Kennedy had been “felled by domestic opponents” through “a large political conspiracy,” “a right-wing conspiracy.”
Canadian historian Timothy Naftali and Russian scholar Aleksandr Fursenko discovered Bobby and Jackie Kennedy’s message in top-secret Soviet intelligence archives and discussed it in their 1997 book One Hell of a Gamble: The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis (pp. 405-407). Bobby and Jackie sent the message through a close family friend, William Walton. James Douglass discusses this historic message in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis edition, 2011):
Bobby and Jackie’s message is especially remarkable because it was sent at a time when the federal government and nearly all news reports were adamantly proclaiming that JFK’s death was nothing but the work of a Marxist nutjob who had acted totally alone, the deranged act of a disturbed loner who had once defected to the Soviet Union and who had defended Castro’s communist regime.
Dear Mike,
Funny ... that's what the world class humanitarian, Nikita Khrushchev, told columnist Drew Pearson at a party in Cairo six months after the assassination, i.e., that the "Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex" aka "The Deep State" aka "Southern Oilmen and The Minutemen" (or some-such thing) had killed JFK!
Must be true, then, huh?
That's what Kremlin-loyal triple-agent Boris Orehkov (FBI's SHAMROCK) tried to lead J. Edgar Hoover to believe in 1966, by getting him to believe that the Kremlin had actually undertaken a long-term investigation of the assassination, right after it happened. LOL!
Question: What are your thoughts on Vladimir Putin, the Red Army Faction-supporting former chief of station of the "backwater" Dresden, East Germany, First Chief Directorate (today's SVR) base?
"Nice guy who's just trying to fend off the fascistic West's globalists"?
-- MWT ;)
...
Crickets, doing what they do collectively in the night ...
-- MWT ;)
-
We learn from historian David Talbot’s best-selling book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years (Simon & Schuster, 2008) that on 11/22, the day of the assassination, RFK called Harry Ruiz-Williams, his closest contact among the anti-Castro Cubans, and said, “One of your guys did it” (pp. 262-263).
In 2007, Talbot wrote the following in Time magazine:
The President's brother quickly concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, had not acted alone. And Bobby immediately suspected the CIA's secret war on Fidel Castro as the source of the plot. At his home that Friday afternoon, Bobby confronted CIA Director John McCone, asking him point-blank whether the agency had killed J.F.K. (McCone denied it.) Later, R.F.K. ordered aides to explore a possible Mafia connection to the crime. And in a revealing phone conversation with Harry Ruiz-Williams, a trusted friend in the anti-Castro movement, Kennedy said bluntly, "One of your guys did it." Though the CIA and the FBI were already working strenuously to portray Oswald as a communist agent, Bobby Kennedy rejected this view. Instead, he concluded Oswald was a member of the shadowy operation that was seeking to overthrow Castro.
Bobby knew that a dark alliance—the CIA, the Mafia and militant Cuban exiles—had formed to assassinate Castro and force a regime change in Havana. That's because President Kennedy had given his brother the Cuban portfolio after the CIA's Bay of Pigs fiasco. But Bobby, who would begin some days by dropping by the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Va., on his way to the Justice Department, never managed to get fully in control of the agency's sprawling, covert war on Castro. Now, he suspected, this underground world—where J.F.K. was despised for betraying the anti-Castro cause—had spawned his brother's assassination.
As Kennedy slowly emerged from his torment over Dallas and resumed an active role in public life—running for U.S. Senator from New York in 1964 and then President in 1968—he secretly investigated his brother's assassination. He traveled to Mexico City, where he gathered information about Oswald's mysterious trip there before Dallas. He met with conspiracy researcher Penn Jones Jr., a crusading Texas newspaperman, in his Senate office. He returned to the Justice Department with his ace investigator Walter Sheridan to paw through old files. He dispatched trusted associates to New Orleans to report to him on prosecutor Jim Garrison's controversial reopening of the case. Kennedy told confidants that he himself would reopen the investigation into the assassination if he won the presidency, believing it would take the full powers of the office to do so. As Kennedy adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once observed, no one of his era knew more than Bobby about "the underground streams through which so much of the actuality of American power darkly coursed: the FBI, CIA, the racketeering unions and the Mob." But when it came to his brother's murder, Bobby never got a chance to prove his case. (“The Kennedy Assassination: Was There a Conspiracy?”, Time, June 21, 2007, http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634964,00.html
So no one should be surprised that about two weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent Walton to advise the Soviets that they believed JFK had been killed by “a large political conspiracy” engineered by his “domestic opponents.”
-
A Trump response. Avoid the question and redirect. LN’s, as a group agree with the findings of the WC that Oswald was the shooter. How many LN’s might consider a conspiracy was possible, I have no idea. Robust debate? You’re being kind. Put 50 CT’s in a room and you’ll get 50 different theories many based on the hundreds Of books written each promising the correct solution. The mainstream view of the American people matters not. You surely know this yet you keep repeating it as if that makes it fact. You’re guilty of doing the very thing politicians and conspiracy types routinely do. Repeat something often enough and you hope people believe it. 330 million Americans. 197 million over 21. How many of those 197 million can name even 5 people involved in the assassination or investigations? Ask one of these 197 million people what a carcano is they’ll likely guess an Italian sports car. My point is there is no ongoing research. Any forum, blog, no different than this one. 30-40-50 year old theories and the CT’s go at each other like sharks. NARA has released 99% of all JFK related docs. There no place for CT’s to go.
When you have a simplistic theory that ignores 90% of the evidence, such as the lone-gunman theory, it is easier to reach a rather specific consensus. But when your theory does not ignore most of the evidence regarding a multi-faceted crime that involved several elements, it is not as easy to reach the kind of specific consensus that the simplistic lone-gunman theory allows. Yet, as I've noted, nearly all conspiracy theorists agree with the basic outline that there were two or more shooters who fired at least four shots--in fact, I don't know of a conspiracy theorist who does not agree with that basic scenario. Beyond that point, yes, there is considerable divergence, but that's because the assassination was a complex, multi-element action, not the act of one crazed lone gunman who acted totally alone, and because much of the evidence has been destroyed or "lost."
You guys keep ignoring all the scientific developments with the medical evidence in the case because they prove things that destroy your version of the assassination. Are you guys ever going to deal with the optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove the x-rays have been altered? Are you ever going to address the fact that the 6.5 mm "fragment" on the x-rays has been proved to be an image that was placed on the skull x-rays (even the HSCA's Larry SPersonivan says it must be an "artifact" because it could not have come from the cross-section of an FMJ missile)? How about the discovery from the x-rays that there is no path from the back wound to the throat without smashing through the spine?
You guys still cite the backyard rifle photos as if the 1992 release of the DPD backyard rifle prints never happened.
Similarly, in this very thread you have claimed that it is 100% certain that Oswald fired three shots, yet the evidence is crystal clear to anyone who is not emotionally committed to rejecting it that one of the shells found in the sniper's nest could not have been fired during the assassination because its lip is too dented and because the marks on it could not have been made during the shooting.
I am sorry that you dislike the fact that a solid majority of the American people still disagree with you. You attribute this to their ignorance, saying that most people in our day know nothing about the case, but that argument fails because the percentage of people who reject the lone-gunman theory was larger in the '70s, '80s, and '90s, back when there were many more people who were alive when the assassination occurred, and back when the JFK case was much more widely discussed by the media than it is today.
And I have to chuckle when I see you describe the lone-gunman theory as cogent and logical. It is, in fact, one of the silliest, most contradictory theories about a crime ever conceived. In your "cogent and logical" theory, Oswald hides "his" rifle between some boxes but leaves his empty shells in plain sight; he discards his jacket after supposedly shooting Tippit, but he fails to get rid of his fake Hidell ID after ordering the murder weapon through the mail using the name Hidell, thus creating a paper trail that leads right back to him, when he could have much more easily simply bought a better rifle at any gun store in Dallas. In your "cogent and logical" theory, Oswald is cool and collected when confronted by a pistol-waving policeman in the second-floor lunchroom no more than 90 seconds after allegedly shooting Kennedy, but a short time later he supposedly panics and suddenly spins around when he sees Tippit's patrol car approaching (never mind that most of the witnesses saw no such event). In your "cogent and logical" theory, Oswald buries his rifle after allegedly firing at General Walker, but it never occurs to him to burn the backyard rifle photos--indeed, not only does he not destroy them, but he tells the police that most of his belongings are in the Paines' garage! In your "cogent and logical" theory, Lt. Day somehow, someway fails to take a single blessed picture of the most important palmprint of the 20th century, even though he takes the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard. And on and on we could go.
-
You guys still cite the backyard rifle photos as if the 1992 release of the DPD backyard rifle prints never happened.
If you are referring to the "cut-out" print, then can you give a reasonable explanation for all the new growth on the bush to Oswald's left and the fact that the new bush to Oswald's right along with the tree in the background having lost all their leaves and how this ties into the original authenticated photos? And while you ponder an answer to the above problem please explain what a full cut-out has to do with your theory of the chin replacement?
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yWcfRcx/backyard-and-cutout-GIF.gif)
JohnM
-
If you are referring to the "cut-out" print, then can you give a reasonable explanation for all the new growth on the bush to Oswald's left and the fact that the new bush to Oswald's right along with the tree in the background having lost all their leaves and how this ties into the original authenticated photos?
That's easy: they could have taken the doctored figure image and pasted it onto an earlier picture of the backyard, using the same background for each picture but creating small differences via keystoning. The DPD prints give us a glimpse into part of the forgery process, not the entire process. What is your innocent explanation for the DPD prints?
We must also keep in mind Robert and Patricia Hester's disclosure in 1970 that on the night of 11/22, they saw federal agents with a color transparency of one of the backyard rifle photos and with a backyard rifle photo with a white silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be--this was before the photos were supposedly "found." The Hesters worked at the National Photo Laboratory at the time, and they were helping the DPD process photos taken in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. Of course, the Hesters could not have known that in 1992 we would learn that the DPD had prints that showed a white silhouette in a draft backyard rifle photo.
Now can you explain how the DPD prints show a man striking a pose that nobody knew existed until 1976?
And while you ponder an answer to the above problem please explain what a full cut-out has to do with your theory of the chin replacement? JohnM
You really need that explained?
Speaking of the Oswald figure's face, the HSCA PEP's Penrose analysis should be mentioned. The Penrose analysis measurements of the Oswald figure did not fall into the same tight groups/clusters that the Penrose measurements for the control photos did. The control photos were undisputed Oswald photos. Their measurements (lines on the graph) fell inside a tight cluster, but the measurements of the Oswald figure did not. Congressman Fithian, who was one of the few committee members who actually paid attention and asked critical questions, noticed this divergence and asked Dr. Snow to explain it, because there should have been no such substantial divergence if the Oswald figure in the backyard photos was the same person shown in the control photos of Oswald. Dr. Snow said the divergence was caused by the poor quality of the backyard photos (4 HSCA 370-384).
But this is a bogus excuse. 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stovall are both high-quality photos--both are much clearer than 133-A and 133-B. 133-A-DeM is so clear that you can read the print on the newspaper in the figure's hand.
It's too bad no one on the committee knew enough to ask Rose if he would describe 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stovel were "rather fuzzy" and "blurry":
Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly explain the graph marked as JFK exhibit F-558.
Dr. [Clyde] SNOW. Yes, sir. I indicated that we take a number of measurements on the photographs. It is convenient to be able to reduce those, that mass of numbers into some single entities that allow us to compare the overall similarities in shape and size that we see. We have done this. It is a rather involved statistical technique developed by a British biometrician named Penrose back in the 1940's, and it is widely employed in other areas of anthropology.
Essentially what we have done here is, using the measurements of the three Dallas photographs as our base line, quantitatively compared the other sets of Oswald photographs here.
Theoretically, if everything were perfect--which it never is---we would find that two objects or sets of photographs exactly duplicated in every detail in terms of the measurements The Dallas photographs, the points when they are plotted would be down here at the zero point of the graph. You can see that they do cluster very closely to that zero point. This variation reflects differences, we feel, in measurement error and technique.
Mr. FITHIAN. Let me ask you to move that chart about a foot to the right. It is blockout out--we can now see it. I am not sure the panel members on the left-hand side can. . . .
Mr. FITHIAN. Let's turn now to the analysis that you made of the Oswald photographs. On the basis of your measurements and your analysis, can you positively identify or state that the series of Oswald photographs shown on exhibits JFK F-556 and F-557 are indeed those of Oswald?
Dr. SNOW. No, sir; we cannot. We cannot on the basis of the measurements alone positively state that all of those photographs are indeed of Oswald. However, we can say that they are all consistent with the hypothesis that all of the photographs are of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. FITHIAN. Would the staff put back up the chart and graph which I was blocked from seeing at the first part of the questioning.
In your work how do you compensate or adjust for plastic surgery that might be done on an individual?
Dr. SNOW. In the Oswald photographs specifically we saw no evidence of any plastic surgery. But this does not mean that there might not have been some there. . . .
Mr. FITHIAN. Would you direct your attention to the chart. The first three right down where the two lines intersect, or very close to it, all seem very tightly arrayed. But the backyard photo seems to have slipped out of orbit somehow or other.
Dr. SNOW. Yes, sir. It is most divergent from the cluster. However, if you will recall those photographs most were of good quality with fairly crisp images. The backyard photographs differ from the rest of the series in that they are rather fuzzy and also they very in the lighting. They are the only two photographs of the series where the lighting is coming from overhead, and we feel that this introduces measurement errors using our technique and would account for this discrepancy. . . .
Mr. FITHIAN. I have just one more brief line of questioning. Would you put up JFK exhibits F-556 and F-557.
Dr. Snow as I understand it, the two backyard photos, the center and lower right of exhibit--what is that, F-556, for the record? Would you explain again in a sentence or two why those photos would, when you get through measuring, put the spot or the dot outside that very tight cluster on your chart.
Dr. SNOW. Again, I believe when you look at the photographs you see, compared to the rest of the photographs of Mr. Oswald that we analyzed, that these two are much fuzzier and blurrier and to influence the errors that are going to be introduced in our measurements that we take off the photographs. In other words, we simply cannot measure these photographs with the same degree of accuracy that we can in the better quality photographs. (4 HSCA 370-371, 382, 384)
-
Anti-science and faith-based. It there was a figure there, he couldn't be used in the backyard photos. There probably wasn't a figure there because it looks like a crude tracing of the outline of Oswald in 133-C. There is a photo from the DPD photo session that shows this scene without anyone in it.
There is nothing anti-science about it. A number of photographic experts have noted this. A stage in producing fake Oswald backyard rifle pics could have been to place someone else's figure on a chosen background, which you could do via overlaying it over an existing figure or by placing it in a silhouette. You might read Mr. Mee's comments on how the photos could have been produced, as well as Professor Womack's comments on this.
I asked you nine days ago for more on this. It's a claim from Jim Marrs. Did anyone else track them down and interview them? Were they real people?
You might have asked me about this nine days ago, but I rarely read your replies because of your earlier conduct.
Yes, the Hesters were real people. Robert Hester died in 1978, but his wife Particia survived him by many years. In 1986, Mrs. Hester spoke to a class at the University of Texas (Arlington) and repeated the same account that she and her husband gave to Jim Marrs in 1970.
The Dallas police had the 133-C photo in their possession, maybe as early as the assassination weekend. Some policemen had copies, including the husband of the woman who handed it over to HSCA in the 70s.
You do not know that the DPD, as a department, had 133-C. Certain elements in the DPD clearly had it, but it is by no means apparent that the DPD as a department had it. But, if they did, why didn't they give it to the WC? Why did 133-C only come to light when Roscoe White's widow turned it over to the HSCA in December 1976? Where's the negative for it? Where's the other missing negative? How does such historic, crucial evidence go "missing"?
What was the DPD doing taking more backyard photos with a stand-in and printing a backyard photo with a white silhouette in it? What is your innocent explanation for all this? What possible valid reason could they have had for doing those things?
The Select Committee determined that all three photographs were authentic
And their authentication is full of holes.
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
; and that the existence of a third pose made it even less likely that forgers would have made the photos, since the more poses, the more possibility for forgery detection.
That was curious logic by the HSCA PEP since they were missing two negatives and were quite selective in choosing which photos to analyze in a given way. When it came to the Penrose analysis, they must have chosen the two worst photos and ignored the best ones, or else Dr. Rose simply lied about 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stovall, both of which are very high-quality photos.
If more poses equals more evidence of authenticity, why in the world did the DPD not hand over 133-C to the WC, assuming the DPD, as a department, had it?
You confuse speculation and innuendo for "explanation".
Professor Womack studied the DPD prints and said they were obviously part of a process to produce fake Oswald backyard rifle photos. Again, what is your innocent explanation for the taking of more backyard photos, for the striking of a pose that the DPD officially knew nothing about (if they did, they didn't tell the FBI or the WC about it), and for producing a print with a white silhouette in it?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scattergram.gif)
Penrose variation. None of the Oswald comparison photos were taken with sunlight above or full-body, meaning that the head measured in the Backyard Photos was defined by a different light source/direction and was a much greater distance from the camera. I believe this would account for the variation.
That won't work: The control photos, as Dr. Snow noted, were clear. His main excuse for the variation--the substantial variation--was that the backyard rifle photos were "rather fuzzy" and "blurry." But this is nonsense. 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stoval are very clear. 133-A-DeM is so high quality that you can read the print on the newspaper in the figure's hand.
Dr. Rose and Congressman Fithian had the following exchange about the Penrose analysis divergence:
Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly explain the graph marked as JFK exhibit F-558.
Dr. [Clyde] SNOW. Yes, sir. I indicated that we take a number of measurements on the photographs. It is convenient to be able to reduce those, that mass of numbers into some single entities that allow us to compare the overall similarities in shape and size that we see. We have done this. It is a rather involved statistical technique developed by a British biometrician named Penrose back in the 1940's, and it is widely employed in other areas of anthropology.
Essentially what we have done here is, using the measurements of the three Dallas photographs as our base line, quantitatively compared the other sets of Oswald photographs here.
Theoretically, if everything were perfect--which it never is---we would find that two objects or sets of photographs exactly duplicated in every detail in terms of the measurements The Dallas photographs, the points when they are plotted would be down here at the zero point of the graph. You can see that they do cluster very closely to that zero point. This variation reflects differences, we feel, in measurement error and technique.
Mr. FITHIAN. Let me ask you to move that chart about a foot to the right. It is blockout out--we can now see it. I am not sure the panel members on the left-hand side can. . . .
Mr. FITHIAN. Let's turn now to the analysis that you made of the Oswald photographs. On the basis of your measurements and your analysis, can you positively identify or state that the series of Oswald photographs shown on exhibits JFK F-556 and F-557 are indeed those of Oswald?
Dr. SNOW. No, sir; we cannot. We cannot on the basis of the measurements alone positively state that all of those photographs are indeed of Oswald. However, we can say that they are all consistent with the hypothesis that all of the photographs are of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. FITHIAN. Would the staff put back up the chart and graph which I was blocked from seeing at the first part of the questioning.
In your work how do you compensate or adjust for plastic surgery that might be done on an individual?
Dr. SNOW. In the Oswald photographs specifically we saw no evidence of any plastic surgery. But this does not mean that there might not have been some there. . . .
Mr. FITHIAN. Would you direct your attention to the chart. The first three right down where the two lines intersect, or very close to it, all seem very tightly arrayed. But the backyard photo seems to have slipped out of orbit somehow or other.
Dr. SNOW. Yes, sir. It is most divergent from the cluster. However, if you will recall those photographs most were of good quality with fairly crisp images. The backyard photographs differ from the rest of the series in that they are rather fuzzy and also they very in the lighting. They are the only two photographs of the series where the lighting is coming from overhead, and we feel that this introduces measurement errors using our technique and would account for this discrepancy. . . .
Mr. FITHIAN. I have just one more brief line of questioning. Would you put up JFK exhibits F-556 and F-557.
Dr. Snow as I understand it, the two backyard photos, the center and lower right of exhibit--what is that, F-556, for the record? Would you explain again in a sentence or two why those photos would, when you get through measuring, put the spot or the dot outside that very tight cluster on your chart.
Dr. SNOW. Again, I believe when you look at the photographs you see, compared to the rest of the photographs of Mr. Oswald that we analyzed, that these two are much fuzzier and blurrier and to influence the errors that are going to be introduced in our measurements that we take off the photographs. In other words, we simply cannot measure these photographs with the same degree of accuracy that we can in the better quality photographs. (4 HSCA 370-371, 382, 384)
-
You can''t use a figure standing in an overcast backyard to make a convincing composite for a figure standing in a sunlit backyard.
Thanks Jerry, I was baiting Griffith so he would put his cards on the table and as predicted what he proposes makes absolutely no sense, if you want to put someone into another background then you have to at least make sure the lighting matches but the sun in the cut-out is in a completely different position and because of the weather conditions there is a lot of ambient fill lighting which further illuminates all the objects facing the camera so when you put the Oswald cut-out which was originally photographed with strong sunlight and shadows back into Griffiths template you end up with an image that sticks out like dogs proverbial's and is easily seen as fake.
I grabbed an image that someone else produced from Google and there is no way that the original Oswald fits back into the scene, it's just a CT's wet fantasy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7L5GzRxS/dpd-cut-out-with-osw-ald.jpg)
Another issue is that you just can't use a cut-out with another camera, at a different distance and different film stock and stick it somewhere else without a massive difference in easily detected film grain but the original BY photos have a consistent film grain across the whole image, which was also a match to the appropriate film stock and this further proves their authenticity. But Griffith seems to believe that like some Frankenstein creation, that the existing backyard photos were made up of a background taken many months ago by someone unspecified, a stand in up to the chin taken many months later and yet another photo of the top of Oswald's head all blended seamlessly down to the microscopic film layer and all with perfectly complementary lighting, it just gets more bizarre with every claim.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvb6zrdk/10grainanalysis.jpg)
The silhouette was a clumsy Southern cracker attempt to make a meaningful exhibit. If it's actual purpose was to facilitate a forgery, it's kind of stupid to leave it in a file for 30-some years and not just destroy it. I suppose only a Southern cracker dumber than the original crackers would think it was used for some sinister purpose.
Those conspirators were absolutely brilliant except for the times when they were unbelievably stupid but watching the CT's dig holes that they then try to escape with even sillier suggestions is really great entertainment. I bet Griffith rues the day that he decided to join up and push his CT BS only to be confronted with a wall of scholarly WC defenders who have humiliated every one of his daft proposals.
JohnM
-
You can''t use a figure standing in an overcast backyard to make a convincing composite for a figure standing in a sunlit backyard.
That is a silly strawman argument. Obviously, for the final products, they chose to use a figure standing in a sunlit backyard, but, as everyone can see, they were unable to get all the shadows to match--the HSCA PEP could not duplicate the variant nose shadows without tilting the model's head into an irrelevant position.
As I discuss in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," when McCamy showed the committee the picture of the model that supposedly demonstrated "just how it can happen that the head can be tilted and the shadow tilt with it," Congressman Fithian noticed that the angle and tilt of the model's head were nothing like the angle and tilt of the Oswald figure's head. In fact, not only was the model's head tilted and rotated so that the model was no longer looking at the camera, but the camera itself was then shifted just to reacquire a frontal view of the face! When Fithian pointed this out to McCamy, McCamy admitted that "there would be a number of assumptions necessary . . . to interpret the Oswald photograph from this demonstration of this effect." LOL! Yeah, that's putting it mildly.
You've never had people question your intelligence?
I usually deal with people who exhibit decorum, people who have enough class to be able to express disagreement without being disagreeable and rude. Anyway, judging from your writing and arguments, I have nothing to worry about if you are the comparison standard for intelligence.
How much more vague can you CTs make these "startling" witnesses?
"Vague"? Let's see: We have their place of employment at the time in question. We have their first and last names. We have the wife speaking to a class on a university campus in 1986 and confirming the account that she and her husband gave in a for-the-record interview in 1970. What exactly is "vague" about them?
You're going to end up doing what WC apologists do to all witnesses whose accounts you can't accommodate and can't credibly explain, and when they "he was just mistaken" claim is just too ludicrous even by your standards: call them crazy and/or liars.
The two better-quality poses made it. What's your problem? You think Southern police departments were infallible? They probably had a lot of low-brow crackers who planted the Confederate flag on their lawn.
Umm, is this supposed to be your explanation for why the DPD did not turn over 133-C to the WC? You are ducking the issue. If the DPD had 133-C, then you folks need to explain why they did not inform the WC, why they withheld crucial and historic evidence from a presidential commission. Making a yo-yo comment about the two "better" poses making it explains nothing. By the way, why are those two poses "better"? What makes them "better"?
The Secret Service made the request. The silhouette was a clumsy Southern cracker attempt to make a meaningful exhibit. If it's actual purpose was to facilitate a forgery, it's kind of stupid to leave it in a file for 30-some years and not just destroy it. I suppose only a Southern cracker dumber than the original crackers would think it was used for some sinister purpose.
That is a joke of an explanation. What innocent reason would the Secret Service have had for making such a request? That makes no sense. An "attempt to make a meaningful exhibit"?! "A meaningful exhibit" for what? A "meaningful exhibit" showing a pose that the DPD officially knew nothing about at the time?
We're talking logic and Southern crackers.
Well, that's nice, but I'm pretty sure that at least some of the Secret Service guys who attended the backyard photo session were not Southerners.
This Womack isn't from the South, per chance?
Seriously? Is this supposed to be another example of your intelligence? Anyway, Womack earned his bachelor's degree in photography from Sam Houston University, earned his master's degree in photography from the IIT Institute of Design in Chicago, and was a professor of photography at Texas Tech University (he's now retired and runs a photography business). When the Houston Post was preparing its article on the DPD prints, they thought enough of Professor Womack's expertise to consult him about the prints. And, again, when he examined the prints, he concluded they represented a phase of an attempt to produce fake Oswald backyard rifle photos.
[Two sets of photos snipped.] One of the control photos. Head detail sharp.
Is this supposed to be your response to the points about the marked divergence between the control photos and the backyard rifle photos?
Look at the graph that Snow showed to the committee, the same graph that you included in your previous reply. Look at the degree of divergence: The Dallas Arrest control photos are virtually dead on at 0 for both shape distance and size distance, as they should be. The Marine control photos are at 0.5 for shape distance and 0.025/0.03 for size distance, pretty close to the Dallas Arrest control photos and certainly close enough to posit correspondence. But the backyard photos are at 1.75/1.8 for shape distance and 0.26/0.27 for size distance, a staggering divergence, a divergence of well over 200% in both cases, a divergence so obvious that even a layman such as Congressman Fithian noticed it.
Why do you suppose the PEP omitted the Penrose measurements for the Oswald figure's nose length, ear lobe length, and chin width (6 HSCA 279, Table III)? Why did they omit just those three measurements? Perhaps because the divergence between the backyard figure and the control photos would have been even more drastic if they had included them?
This was another case where the HSCA PEP stared right at clear evidence of fraud in the backyard rifle photos but instead decided to see the emperor's new clothes, just as they did when they found only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects in the photos (an abject impossibility if the photos were taken in the manner alleged), just as the HSCA FPP did with the clear evidence, confirmed for them by Angel and McDonnel, that the autopsy skull x-rays show frontal bone missing.
And what "print" can anyone read in 133-A-DeM? You can barely make out the newspaper's nameplate.
Really? Well, I can't speak for what you say you can and cannot see. I hope you understand that when I say that the newspaper print on 133-A-DeM is readable, I do not mean it is readable without enlarging the photo. In any case, anyone can look at 133-A-DeM and see that it has markedly better detail and much higher resolution than 133-A and 133-B. The HSCA PEP concluded that 133-A-DeM was made in a "high quality enlarger with a high quality lens," whereas 133-A and 133-B were very cheaply produced (they were almost certainly developed at a drugstore).
On review of 133A-de Mohrenschildt (see figs. IV-20 and IV-21, JFK exhibits F-382 (front) and F-383 (reverse) ), the panel noted that it had been probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens. (6 HSCA 147)
The PEP called 133-A and 133-B "drugstore prints":
As most drugstore prints, these were apparently cropped slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border around their periphery. (6 H 147)
And, again, why wasn't 133-A-DeM cropped, whereas all the others were? Why was 133-A-DeM's entire negative area printed, and why was the unexposed border area beyond the aperture reproduced as black on the print? This is nothing like the other photos that Oswald supposedly got developed. The HSCA PEP admitted that this was an "unusual way" to process a photo:
As a result, the entire negative area is printed and the unexposed border area outside the full camera aperture has been recorded as black on the print. Because people normally like to have white borders on their pictures, this is an unusual way of presenting a photograph. (6 H 147)
.
-
It appears to have been verbal. However, Bolshakov wrote a memorandum of record of his conversation with Walton after he spoke with him that day, 12/9/63, and Fursenko and Naftali interviewed Bolshakov in January 1989 to confirm the memo's contents (One Hell of a Gamble, p. 476 notes 20, 22).
Douglass omitted some juicy additional information. Walton said, "Dallas was the ideal location for such a crime. . . . Perhaps there was only one assassin, but he did not act alone," and "The Kennedy clan considered the selection of Johnson a dreadful mistake" (pp. 406-407).
I should add that Walton would not have been one to twist Bobby and Jackie's words. Walton was a close, longtime friend of the family. During the 1960 election, Walton worked full time for JFK and Bobby. JFK and Jackie watched the 1960 election returns with only one person: Walton. JFK stayed in Walton's home in DC during the final transition weeks until he moved into the White House. Walton frequently spent long hours with the Kennedys in the White House. So it is no surprise that Bobby and Jackie chose him to convey their views on the assassination to the Soviet leadership.
The "mainstream" view of the American people is that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. That was also the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last government body to formally investigate the case. And there are plenty of historians who reject the lone-gunman theory.
That's a hoot. Lone-gunman theorists are all over the map among themselves about the Tague wounding, the autopsy evidence, when Kennedy was first hit, the cause of Kennedy's backward headsnap, the 6.5 mm fragment, the additional fragment that McDonnell identified on the rear of the skull in the autopsy x-rays, etc., etc. etc.
There is wide agreement among conspiracy theorists about the basic outline of the assassination plot. The fact that there is robust debate about some aspects of the plot is a sign of vitality, analysis, and ongoing research.
There is wide agreement amongst me, myself and I that CTers are silly and worthy only of mockery.
-
-
There is wide agreement amongst me, myself and I that CTers are silly and worthy only of mockery.
Then you are saying that Bobby and Jackie Kennedy were silly and are only worthy of mockery. You are saying that the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last official federal investigation into the JFK assassination, was silly and is only worthy of mockery.
You are a prime example of the fawning subjects in the story of the emperor's new clothes.
-
Shifting the goalposts? So now Backyard Photo forgers are doing a pointless after-the-fact dry-run?
That is a whole lot more plausible than your theory that they were doing all this to create an "exhibit." At that point, they would not have known if it was a "pointless dry-run." They likely would have tried a number of different poses, stand-ins, and times of day, and then used the ones that they thought were best.
If the shadows are accurate, then it decreases "evidence" of forgery, right? Well, the shadows were scientifically-proven to be accurate with the HSCA's vanishing point analysis and Farid's 3D study. Yeah. Science. You're probably a Climate Change Denier.
The head in 133-A is tilted. The HSCA replica is not perfect but it demonstrates the principal of how the nose cast its shadow. The 3D study would later confirm it all.
There is not much one can do for you when you refuse to admit what is plainly visible. The head in 133-A is slightly tilted, but the tilt and angle are nothing like the tilt and angle of the model. Anyone can look at the model and see that plainly and clearly, as Fithian did, which is why McCamy was forced to admit that the model's position did not match that of the backyard figure's head.
I point out again, since you ignored the point, that to "duplicate" the variant nose shadow, they had to tilt the model's head so that it was no longer even facing the camera and then had to move the camera to adjust accordingly. You see, the problem was that they were trying to show that if the head tilts, the shadow under the nose will tilt with it--which of course does not happen on this planet.
Furthermore, if you read McCamy's testimony carefully, you will see that the reenactment he cited actually confirmed the impossibility of the shadow tilting with the head. When they titled the model's head, the shadow fell "slightly to the right," not directly under the nose:
Here [in the first reenactment photo] we see the head vertical with the overhead lighting casting a shadow of the nose directly toward the center of the lips. Here [in the next reenactment photo] the head has been tilted. . . . once it is tilted, the sun casts the shadow slightly to the right. (1 HSCA 414)
This is exactly what we would see in the backyard photos if they were genuine. When the Oswald figure's head is tilted slightly to his left, as it is in 133-B, the shadow of his nose should no longer fall straight down over his lips, but it does. That cannot happen on this planet.
Mr. FITHIAN. Let me rephrase a different question. Are you saying that, or aren't you saying,
just to push you a bit, that in order to keep that shadow right under the nose, in the same
place, that you (a) have to tilt the head one way and, at the same time, rotate it on its axis
a precise point, to a precise point, in order to keep the shadow there? Third, you are
assuming that the camera, then, would have to move in somebody's hand to the next position.
Now, I am not a statistician, but the probability of that, all three of those things being
present in order to keep that shadow there, seems to the layman to be a little high. It seems
like you would have to--the probability would be that those three things would not come
together at the same place, at the same time. Am I way off base, sir?
Mr. McCAMY. No. I don't think so. I think that you are right in saying that there would be a
number of assumptions necessary, if we were to try to interpret the Oswald photograph
from this demonstration of this effect.
But that is not the way the interpretation was done. In fact, the interpretation was done by
a vanishing point analysis, and this is the standard technique for studying the shadows in a
photograph. If we bring back the vanishing point analysis photographs, you can, if you like,
examine the lines and you will see that the shadows are where they ought to be. That is
the best analysis.
Since there no followup on the matter, it would seem Congressman Fithian was satisfied with McCamy's answer.
Huh? Fithian had just gotten McCamy to admit that one would have to make several assumptions "if we were to try to interpret the Oswald photograph from this demonstration." Yeah, because Fithian had also forced him to admit that the position of the model's head was very different from the position of the backyard figure's head. I notice you keep ignoring this crucial point, so I will repeat it yet again:
McCamy acknowledged that when the model's head was tilted and rotated, the model was "no longer looking at the camera," and that the only way the technicians could get the shadow to fall straight down was to cause an "ever so slight" shift in the camera's position to "bring the image back to looking about, as it did at first" (1 HSCA 414).
The vanishing point analysis is further proof that the PEP guys knew they were engaged in fraud. Their vanishing point analysis proves nothing about the variant shadows, and anyone who understands the subjective nature of a vanishing point analysis knows this. Mr. Mee said the vanishing point analysis really proved nothing. I quote from part of my interview with him:
MTG. I was going to ask you about that later, but as long as we're on the subject. . . . Now, McCamy, instead of dealing with the problems in the shadows themselves, appealed to a vanishing point analysis. He never actually got around to explaining why the nose and eye shadows drop straight down, while, on the other hand, you have a big patch of light on the left side of the neck; and why you have the body shadows in A and C falling at about a ten o'clock position. Instead of dealing head-on with those problems, he appealed to a vanishing point analysis. We'll get into this more later, but for right now I'd like to ask you if you think that an analysis of that kind can overrule what you're able to see in the photos themselves as far as the contrasting shadows?
MR. MEE. No, not at all. The shadows themselves, the different angles that they show, their shape, the areas that they should cover but don't-- these have got to be dealt with directly. No form of analysis is going to convince me that those shadows are not different shadow groups.
MTG. Okay. Now. . . .
MR. MEE. Let me give you a little background on why I say this. There are a lot of ways to alter shadows in photography. But in this situation, where the figure was outdoors, during the day, and where there was only one light source, there is just no way that all the shadows in these photos could have occurred at the same time of day.
Now, it could be argued that the reason there is more light on the neck in 133-A is that you're getting a reflection off the newspaper, but in B and C the newspaper is out to the side, and. . . .
MTG. The patch of light is still there. . . .
MR. MEE. It's still there. It's still consistent. And that shouldn't be. Most of the neck on both sides should be in shadow, to be consistent with the eye and nose shadows.
And the nose shadow should not stay in that V-shape, coming straight down onto the upper lip, when the head is tilted. Now, with the tilt of the head here, you wouldn't see a big difference in the nose shadow, but you would see some difference. The shape and the angle would change. It [the nose shadow] shouldn't look like that with the head tilted.
I interviewed several other professional photographers/photo lab technicians, one of whom had taught photography at the collegiate level, about this issue. I described a hypothetical set of photos of a doll that showed the same shadow variations that we see in the backyard rifle photos, and I asked them if a vanishing point analysis could explain those variations. All of them said that that the shadow variations were not possible without two different light sources. None of them said that a vanishing point analysis could explain away such variations.
Any halfway competent forger would have known the basic concept of vanishing point. A vanishing point analysis merely states that a shadow should fall in a line, but it does not establish at what point on the line the shadow should fall. There are countless shadows in a given photo that would "pass" a vanishing point analysis, even though only one of them would be correct. In this regard, it is revealing that the PEP only did its vanishing point analysis in one dimension.
The fact that McCamy had to fall back on the vanishing point analysis to divert attention from the PEP's failure to duplicate the variant shadows with physical models says volumes.
Regarding Farid's 3D study, I can "render" all kinds of hokum with a 3D program if I ignore most of the evidence. Judging from Farid's study, he is unfamiliar with the HSCA PEP's failed attempt to duplicate the variant shadows, especially the variant nose shadow. At least the PEP used a physical model and actual lighting when they unsuccessfully tried to duplicate the nose shadow. Farid also appears to be unaware of the attempts that have been made to duplicate the variant nose shadow using live persons--all of which have failed (in one of them, the tester decided to simply remove the person's head from the photo rather than show the shadow).
Why don't you compare Farid's 3D study with the 3D study done by Larry Rivera, an expert in computer imaging technology. Rivera used the 3D-rendering software program Blender in his study. Rivera's study produced results that are very different from those that Farid's study produced. In preparing his study, Rivera considered input from photographic expert Steve Jaffe, among others. Here is Rivera's study as published on the Academia website:
https://www.academia.edu/42602519/Backyard_Man_Identified (scroll down to "Even more proof")
If you're not being called out on your intelligence, you must go on a lot of moderated pro-Trump, Mormon, Pearl Harbor conspiracy and far-right forums.
The forum has nothing to do with it. We're talking about conducting yourself with a little class and decorum, which you seem incapable of doing.
What's vague is that twice you've offered up only summations, from fellow conspiracy nuts.
Oh. . . . Okay. . . . I see! So Marrs is a "conspiracy nut" and therefore everything he says can be dismissed if you can't use your "they were simply mistaken" line. Well, the University of Texas had Marrs teach classes on the JFK assassination, so they obviously didn't think he was nuts. And I suppose it was just a lucky guess that the Hesters (or Marrs, according to you) said that one of the photos they saw had a white silhouette in it--and, lo and behold, we found out in 1992 that the DPD had just such a backyard print. Just an amazing coincidence, an incredibly lucky guess, right?
What does it matter? A conspiracy? A cover-up? Why turn over the better poses and "conceal" 133-C?
Why not hand over all of this crucial evidence when a presidential commission asks for it? How did they "lose/misplace" the two other negatives? It is amazing that you look at such clear evidence of cover-up and wave it aside with lame excuses.
And what kind of "concealment" is giving out copies of 133-C to members of the DPD?
Well, in the real world, if there is no cover-up going on, when a presidential commission is investigating the assassination of a U.S. president and you are the police department that is holding historic, crucial photographic evidence relating to the accused assassin, you don't pick and choose which photos and negatives you're going to hand over--unless, of course, you are engaged in a cover-up and don't want the commission to be aware of some of the evidence.
Some people who take part in cover-ups like to keep trophies or souvenirs. The fact that one or two DPD officers had a copy of 133-C does not help your case but only raises further suspicion about the DPD.
For one thing, 133-C has more camera blur than the other two. Look at the stair steps, for example. You seem to think doubting everything makes you appear smarter. But if you doubt things logical and observable, you're probably watching too much Fox News.
So your idea of "logical and observable" is that there is nothing the least bit odd or wrong about the DPD withholding one of three backyard rifle photos and "losing" two of the three negatives. Right. You bet. Happens all the time--at least in your world, apparently.
I suppose they wanted to see how a man standing scaled with the background. And since Oswald denied living at Neely Street, it would demonstrate that the Backyard photos were taken there.
LOL! Ok, let's try this: Can you name for me a single other case in the history of crime where the police did such a thing--took reenactment photos with a stand-in striking a pose that no one knew the suspect had been allegedly pictured assuming until 13 years later, and then cut out the stand-in, producing a white silhouette, in one of the prints. Find me just one case where a police department or any other law enforcement agency has ever done such a thing.
And, by the way, if all they wanted to do was "see how a man standing scaled with the background," why the white silhouette, and why have the man strike a pose that they allegedly did not know about until 13 years later?
And they would have seen 133-C and the crude attempt at an exhibit and decided not to send it on. Maybe they figured the folks in Washington had the 133-C picture.
And where on earth would they have thought the "folks in Washington" would have acquired a copy of 133-C?
So why keep the materials from the photo session some-30 years in a DPD folder? Why not trash it if the photos disclosed a conspiratorial purpose?
Because they might have logically thought that those materials would never see the light of day. Huge amounts of conspiracy evidence were revealed in sealed documents held by the federal government that were released by the ARRB in the 1990s. Certainly if the people who initially controlled those documents had known they would be released decades earlier than expected, they might well have destroyed them. Military intelligence destroyed their files on Oswald, in violation of the law. The Secret Service destroyed all of their records relating to presidential protection arrangements in the fall of 1963, even though they had been expressly warned by the National Archives to preserve those records for ARRB review--and then the Secret Service tried to keep the ARRB from discovering their perfidy.
So again we're talking the opinion of ignorant Southern crackers, not science. Where's Womack's measurements and how they were taken? Are there any visual exhibits? Anything along the quality of HSCA Volume VI:Photographic Evidence or Farid's study?
Oh, okay! What kind of an idiotic argument is this? It makes no difference that Professor Womack is a Southerner, not to mention that he got his MA in photography from an institute in Chicago, not that that makes any difference. I mean, if you want to play your silly bigoted game, well, Malcolm Thompson was not some "ignorant Southern cracker." Brian Mee is not some "ignorant Southern cracker." Steve Jaffe was not some "ignorant Southern cracker."
It is amazing that you would get on a public board and express such bigotry because you cannot explain the problems with the HSCA PEP's "authentication" of the backyard photos, nor can you explain the evidence of fraud in the photos.
There is a "marked divergence" only between the Oswald photos and those of Lovelady. A more subtle and explainable difference among the Oswald photos.
Then you can't read.
A 200-plus-percent variance is normally considered "marked" by any rational standard. The fact that this variance is not as great as the wild variance of the face of a different person is meaningless, and it says a lot about your understanding and/or candor that you would cite it at all. Of course, Lovelady's face is going to be wildly variant, because he's a different person. In the case of the Oswald figure, we're talking about part of the face being Oswald's face and part of it being someone else's face, so naturally the divergence is not going to be nearly as wild as that of Lovelady's face, although it is still quite substantial--again, over 200%.
The Dallas arrest photo set are zero not because the measurements taken from them were more accurately made.
I never said that was the case. What are you talking about? It seems you're trying to appear to make a point by making a strawman, meaningless, and erroneous statement.
They're "zero" because they represented the starting point for the other photos.
Uh, yeah, because they were the baseline control photos because they were the clearest and, in many cases, provided close-up views.
If you used the New Orleans set, or the Backyard Photos, as the starting point, the Dallas Arrest photo set would no longer be at "zero". [Pointless quote snipped.]
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, of course. The point, which you keep dancing around, is that the Backyard cluster is over 200% divergent from the Dallas Arrest cluster in both distance and shape. You keep dancing around this central fact. And that divergence did not include the measurements for the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin.
Aren't all photo sets roughly-equal in divergence from the Russia photo set. Doesn't the New Orleans photo set almost match the "Mean Distance" of the Backyard Photos?
You must be kidding. The "mean distance"?! Do you know how to read a graph? Do you not see the numbers on each line of the graph? Look at the graph again and you should be able to discern these numbers:
Dallas Arrest: 0 shape distance, 0 size distance
Marine: 0.5 shape distance, 0.020/0.025 size distance
New Orleans: 1.6 shape distance, 0.06/0.07 size distance
Russia: 0.9 shape distance, 0.19 size distance
Backyard: 1.75/1.8 for shape distance, 0.31/0.32 size distance
Now, the closest of the Oswald clusters to the Backyard cluster is the New Orleans cluster, but even it diverges by 9% in shape distance and by 250% in size distance from the Backyard cluster.
If the backyard figure's face Penrose measurements were reasonably similar to those of the face seen in the Dallas arrest photos, you would not have these huge variations. And the variations would be even greater if the measurements had included those of the chin, nose, and ear lobes.
BTW, here's some matches that were closer:
| Backyard | | Dallas Arrest | | New Orleans |
84.4 | | 85.6 | | 83.5 |
31.0 | | 30.0 | | 32.1 |
32.6 | | 32.8 | | 32.6 |
Now, to post this cherry-picked nonsense, you either don't grasp the basics about the Penrose analysis or you are hoping that our readers here are so gullible and math challenged that they will ignore the plainly obvious huge divergences seen on the graph and somehow instead be impressed with your three cherry-picked sets of measurements.
"There some missing values for the three profile views of Oswald. This is because
certain measurements necessary for calculating these indices cannot be obtained
from a profile photograph. Also, a few indices could not be calculated for the
full-face photographs because lighting, image clarity, or other factors would not
permit the necessary measurements to be made with sufficient accuracy."
LOL! Right. . . . Yeah. . . . And it was just a whopping, cosmic, incredible coincidence that the only three measurements that were omitted from the Penrose analysis were those of the same three areas that critics and photographic experts have identified as problematic: the chin width, the nose length, and the lobe length! I'd be willing to bet good money that even the dumbest Southern "cracker" who looked at the backyard photos would have enough basic intelligence to see that Snow's excuse is laughable.
Do tell me why they could not have gotten these measurements from 133-A-DeM or from 133-A-Stovall or from 133-C. 133-C is an 8 x 10 print. 133-A-Stovall is a 5 x 8 print and has better resolution than 133-A or 133-B. Let's see you stammer out some ridiculous excuse for why the nose, chin, and ear lobes are not clear enough in those photos to get those measurements. You simply must be kidding.
And, again, just imagine how much greater the divergence between the Dallas Arrest cluster and the Backyard cluster would have been if those measurements had been included.
"Microscopic differences"? Is that like when you initially claimed the President's shirt "bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat"? Only to downgrade it (however slightly) to the "nearly identical correspondence" of the shirt and jacket holes? You evidently can't measure, report or comprehend accurately. Maybe all three.
This is a dishonest argument. Yes, I did very slightly modify my language from "millimeter-for-millimeter" to "nearly identical correspondence." This very modest and reasonable correction has nothing to do with the fact that the HSCA PEP did in fact find only microscopic differences in the distances between objects in the background. But you cite the correction in an effort to dishonestly question my reliability. And allow me to remind you that when we discussed the clothing holes, you did not even know that the rear coat and shirt holes overlapped, something that has been known since Frazier described their overlapping in his WC testimony.
Let us look at the differences that the PEP found in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos:
The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter
b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm
The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.
The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:
Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)
Here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:
133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11
You do not have to be a genius or a math whiz to grasp that these are very, very tiny differences. Now just try to imagine the odds of the camera ending up in virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and distance position in relation to the target, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, after being handed back and forth between each exposure, in order to produce such microscopic differences.
I see the word "Militant" in the nameplate, a roughly-defined "The" and maybe the form of the article headings, but no body type is readable.
They determined the prints were commercial because of the small graphic mark on the back of the prints that were made by an automatic printing machine. The only thing limiting quality would be if the resolution was reduced due to the size of the print or the amount of contrast was excessive. it wouldn't matter much if the prints were made at a commercial lab or a private studio. The de Mohrenschildt print has better-resolution by virtue of it being among the largest of the known prints. But there is a limit to how much more information can be gained through enlarging.
Well, you know, again, I can't talk about what you claim you can and cannot see or read. The bottom line is that 133-A-DeM is certainly clear enough that the backyard figure's nose, ear lobes, and chin could have been measured. So are 133-A-Stovall and 133-C-Stovall, for that matter.
Looks to me like it's one that Oswald made at the place he worked. It's a good size, so maybe he was going to send it to "The Militant"; they didn't care about it lacking a border because they would crop the area they needed if it was published. I suspect newspapers preferred uncropped images. If only intended as a gift, Oswald apparently signed his name on the back and allowed it to be given to de Mohrenschildt. Oswald might not have known how to crop pictures or his company lacked a cropping frame that size.
Right, just assume a priori that the WC's tale is true and then proceed from there. How does any of this explain why 133-A-DeM's entire negative area was printed, and why the unexposed border area beyond the aperture was reproduced as black on the print?
Given how closely Oswald was supervised at Jaggars-Stovall, since he was a trainee, and given that several of his co-workers worked "right there with him," and given the demands of his schedule to complete a certain number of print jobs (each with its own ID number), it is very unlikely that he would have been able to work on the backyard photos on the job, even making the questionable assumption that he had them in the first place.
-
At the least, it's unclear JFK would have pulled us out of Vietnam.
-
At the least, it's unclear JFK would have pulled us out of Vietnam.
No, it is very clear that he intended to pull out of Vietnam after he was reelected.
-
Then you are saying that Bobby and Jackie Kennedy were silly and are only worthy of mockery. You are saying that the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last official federal investigation into the JFK assassination, was silly and is only worthy of mockery.
You are a prime example of the fawning subjects in the story of the emperor's new clothes.
1) Nah, just you lot.
2) Want some fries with that nothingburger?
-
Mike Griffith: Then you are saying that Bobby and Jackie Kennedy were silly and are only worthy of mockery. You are saying that the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last official federal investigation into the JFK assassination, was silly and is only worthy of mockery.
1) Nah, just you lot.
2) Want some fries with that nothingburger?
IOW, you don't have the nerve to attack Bobby, Jackie, and the HSCA, even though they took many of the same positions that most other conspiracy theorists hold.
-
IOW, you don't have the nerve to attack Bobby, Jackie, and the HSCA, even though they took many of the same positions that most other conspiracy theorists hold.
All conspiracy-mongers are equal
But some are more equal than others
-
IOW, you don't have the nerve to attack Bobby, Jackie, and the HSCA, even though they took many of the same positions that most other conspiracy theorists hold.
-
Good one. And Jackie pretty much dissed these bargain-basement CTer types, didn't she?
-
Bobby and Jackie’s message is especially remarkable....
In early December 1963, William Walton traveled to Moscow on behalf of Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy to convey a secret message to the Soviet leaders about President Kennedy’s assassination.
Seriously doubtful...Why would they do this?
Besides, the Soviet response was already broadcast the very day of the assassination...that is was a right wing conspiracy.
Which it was.
-
https://youtu.be/qGwjuagBEhQ
You must be joking. Yes, publicly, RFK played the good soldier and supported the WC, but it has been known for decades that privately he strongly rejected it. Again, it is like you guys are stuck in a time warp and either do not know know about or choose to ignore post-1970 research that contradicts your beliefs. You might read historian David Talbot’s best-selling book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years (Simon & Schuster, 2008), which documents that privately Bobby believed exactly what he and Jackie told the Soviets through their close friend Walton just weeks after the assassination.
Are you aware that Earl Warren--yeah, the guy who chaired the WC--said in a 1972 TV interview that there was probably someone else involved besides Oswald? Yet all those years before then he said no such thing. Senators Russell and Cooper, two other WC members, were so skeptical of the single-bullet theory that they forced a last-minute meeting of the commission in order to have their dissent made part of the record (but it was buried and did not come to light until decades later), yet publicly they did not challenge the WC.
Perhaps you are new to politics and American history, but sometimes politicians say things in public that do not reflect what they really believe.
Even in the last months of his life, JFK made several public statements about the need to stay the course in Vietnam, yet we now know that privately he made it very clear to numerous people that he intended to pull out of Vietnam after he was reelected.
I mean, this stuff has been known for years and years, but you guys act like you've heard of it.
-
No, it is very clear that he intended to pull out of Vietnam after he was reelected.
But was he just pretending to just to get re-elected?
But like Obama promising to bring all the troops home in 2009 if he got elected. And then he ended up sending more troops there and bombing Libya.
JFK might have made a bigger mess of Vietnam than LBJ.
-
But was he just pretending to just to get re-elected?
But like Obama promising to bring all the troops home in 2009 if he got elected. And then he ended up sending more troops there and bombing Libya.
JFK might have made a bigger mess of Vietnam than LBJ.
I think Dr. James Douglass makes a compelling case in JFK and the Unspeakable that Kennedy was determined to withdraw from Vietnam after the election, because he had become convinced that the war was unwinnable.
-
RFK jr accuses the CIA of assassinating both his father & JFK. A 70 year vendetta.