JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on December 10, 2021, 07:02:03 AM
-
In response to responses to... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3234.msg120225.html#msg120225
Because it is always amazing to read criticism [of a presentation] from someone who will never watch it :-\
-
Like the CTs and CT-"skeptics" who won't read the Warren Report or the visit the Sixth Floor Museum out of misguided "principle".
Thanks for the laugh there. Pitiful though it is.
For others...start at 26:35 into the video and then we have the audio--Sen Richard Russell telling President Johnson that he won't sign off on the Warren Report because he doesn't believe in a single bullet doing all that damage to two men. "I just don't believe it" Russell tells Johnson... "I don't either" said the President.
See? Even LBJ didn't believe the findings of his own commission :D
-
Oh well then, varmint-hunters LBJ and Russell trump the experts used by the Warren Commission and HSCA, the 2004 "Beyond the Magic Bullet" documentary and Luke and Michael Haag (NOVA 2013).
I'm sure -- in the CT and CT-"skeptic" world -- some ambulance drivers and orderlies are better able to speak on the medical aspects than, for example, the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.
Because the military’s autopsy on JFK was botched, we’ll never be able to conclusively resolve the controversies surrounding the medical evidence (sorry but photographic evidence is no substitute for doing the autopsy or exhuming JFK’s body years later).
If the source material is garbage, all investigations that followed reached conclusions that were based on a garbage foundation.
-
Oh well then, varmint-hunters LBJ and Russell trump the experts used by the Warren Commission and HSCA, the 2004 "Beyond the Magic Bullet" documentary and Luke and Michael Haag (NOVA 2013).
I'm sure -- in the CT and CT-"skeptic" world -- some ambulance drivers and orderlies are better able to speak on the medical aspects than, for example, the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.
You do understand that an appeal to authority is a a fallacious argument, right?
-
Thanks for the laugh there. Pitiful though it is.
For others...start at 26:35 into the video and then we have the audio--Sen Richard Russell telling President Johnson that he won't sign off on the Warren Report because he doesn't believe in a single bullet doing all that damage to two men. "I just don't believe it" Russell tells Johnson... "I don't either" said the President.
See? Even LBJ didn't believe the findings of his own commission :D
You wouldn't happen to be implying that Russell & Johnson were FMJ ammo experts, now would you GIGles.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8G9XJs1/FMJ-AMMO-REASON.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
See?
-
In terms of appeal to authority, how does Freeman's citing the POTUS and senior Senator Richard Russell rank?
What I referred to was an appeal to the proven expertise of people with a long-term background in their fields.
Freeman merely stated the known fact that Russell and President Johnson both did not believe the SBT. If Freeman's intention was to prove the single bullet theory wrong, than that would equally be an appeal to authority, but I don't see him doing that.
You on the other hand used your appeal to authority as proof that the official narrative is correct, which is the essence of the fallacy. It is also dishonest because subsequent investigations, after the initial one by the FBI and Warren Commission, used the same evidentiary material, which basically was only the prosecutorial case against Oswald. There is not a single item of exculpatory evidence in the WC report or the 26 volumes.
As John Banks correctly said; If the source material is garbage, all investigations that followed reached conclusions that were based on a garbage foundation.
The conclusions of the Warren Commission are not proof that the conclusions of the Warren Commission are correct!
-
You wouldn't happen to be implying that Russel & Johnson were FMJ ammo experts, now would you GIGles.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8G9XJs1/FMJ-AMMO-REASON.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
See?
How Much Damage Should Have Occurred?
Tests were carried out on behalf of the Warren Commission by the Department of Defense at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. Two experiments suggested strongly that the CE 399 bullet had not caused Connally’s wounds:
Bullets of the same type as CE 399 were fired into the wrist bones of ten human cadavers. All ten bullets were severely deformed, unlike CE 399.
One bullet was fired into a goat’s rib, and was flattened substantially more than CE 399. Another bullet was fired into a block of gelatin, and was only moderately flattened, like CE 399.
In the words of Dr Joseph Dolce, the US Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics, “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.” Dr Dolce was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. The Edgewood Arsenal report, Wound Ballistics of 6.5–mm Mannlicher–Carcano Ammunition, was withheld from the public for ten years, and only made available as the result of a law suit under the Freedom of Information Act by the researcher Harold Weisberg.
How Much Metal Was Missing from CE 399?
According to the FBI’s ballistics expert, Robert Frazier, the CE 399 bullet weighed 158.6 grains (10.277 grammes, or 0.363 ounces). He examined three unfired bullets of the same type as the CE 399 bullet, and found that they weighed 160.85, 161.5 and 161.1 grains. Frazier pointed out that CE 399’s weight was within the normal range of intact bullets, and that “there did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.430).
Some metal was missing from the CE 399 bullet, for reasons other than the bullet striking Kennedy and Connally:
The bullet had been fired from a rifle, which would have removed approximately half a grain from the copper coating.
The FBI had taken two small samples from the bullet: one from the copper at its nose, and one from the lead at its base.
If CE 399 were the only bullet to have struck Governor Connally, it must have been the source of all the metal fragments that were deposited in his chest, thigh and wrist wounds:
Two small fragments were removed from his wrist (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.841 [Commission Exhibit 842]). The larger of the two fragments weighed 0.5 grain (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.5, p.72).
Dr Charles Gregory, who operated on Connally’s wrist, pointed out that other fragments were removed from the wrist and then mislaid: “there were two fragments of metal retrieved … the major one or ones now being missing” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.123). Nurse Audrey Bell also recalled several missing fragments: ARRB MD 184, pp.2f.
A fragment measuring approximately 2 mm by 0.5 mm was removed from just below the skin on the thigh (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.125).
Other fragments were left in place. According to Dr Robert Shaw, who had operated on Connally, “more than three grains of metal [remained] in the wrist” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.113).
A small fragment remained in the chest (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.111).
A flake of metal measuring approximately 2 mm by 0.2 mm remained embedded in Connally’s femur (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.125).
The pathologists who conducted President Kennedy’s autopsy were presented with the CE 399 bullet by representatives of the Warren Commission and were asked whether they thought it could have caused Connally’s injuries. Dr James Humes, the chief pathologist, replied:
I think that is most unlikely.… This missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of those locations. … I doubt if this missile would have left behind it any metallic fragments from its physical appearance at this time. … Metallic fragments were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.374–76)
The other two pathologists, Dr J. Thornton Boswell (ibid., p.377) and Dr Pierre Finck (“there are too many fragments”: ibid., pp.381f), agreed with Dr Humes.
http://22november1963.org.uk/ce-399-magic-bullet-planted-or-genuine
-
How Much Damage Should Have Occurred?
Tests were carried out on behalf of the Warren Commission by the Department of Defense at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. Two experiments suggested strongly that the CE 399 bullet had not caused Connally’s wounds:
Bullets of the same type as CE 399 were fired into the wrist bones of ten human cadavers. All ten bullets were severely deformed, unlike CE 399.
One bullet was fired into a goat’s rib, and was flattened substantially more than CE 399. Another bullet was fired into a block of gelatin, and was only moderately flattened, like CE 399.
In the words of Dr Joseph Dolce, the US Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics, “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.” Dr Dolce was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. The Edgewood Arsenal report, Wound Ballistics of 6.5–mm Mannlicher–Carcano Ammunition, was withheld from the public for ten years, and only made available as the result of a law suit under the Freedom of Information Act by the researcher Harold Weisberg.
How Much Metal Was Missing from CE 399?
According to the FBI’s ballistics expert, Robert Frazier, the CE 399 bullet weighed 158.6 grains (10.277 grammes, or 0.363 ounces). He examined three unfired bullets of the same type as the CE 399 bullet, and found that they weighed 160.85, 161.5 and 161.1 grains. Frazier pointed out that CE 399’s weight was within the normal range of intact bullets, and that “there did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.430).
Some metal was missing from the CE 399 bullet, for reasons other than the bullet striking Kennedy and Connally:
The bullet had been fired from a rifle, which would have removed approximately half a grain from the copper coating.
The FBI had taken two small samples from the bullet: one from the copper at its nose, and one from the lead at its base.
If CE 399 were the only bullet to have struck Governor Connally, it must have been the source of all the metal fragments that were deposited in his chest, thigh and wrist wounds:
Two small fragments were removed from his wrist (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.841 [Commission Exhibit 842]). The larger of the two fragments weighed 0.5 grain (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.5, p.72).
Dr Charles Gregory, who operated on Connally’s wrist, pointed out that other fragments were removed from the wrist and then mislaid: “there were two fragments of metal retrieved … the major one or ones now being missing” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.123). Nurse Audrey Bell also recalled several missing fragments: ARRB MD 184, pp.2f.
A fragment measuring approximately 2 mm by 0.5 mm was removed from just below the skin on the thigh (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.125).
Other fragments were left in place. According to Dr Robert Shaw, who had operated on Connally, “more than three grains of metal [remained] in the wrist” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.113).
A small fragment remained in the chest (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.111).
A flake of metal measuring approximately 2 mm by 0.2 mm remained embedded in Connally’s femur (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.125).
The pathologists who conducted President Kennedy’s autopsy were presented with the CE 399 bullet by representatives of the Warren Commission and were asked whether they thought it could have caused Connally’s injuries. Dr James Humes, the chief pathologist, replied:
I think that is most unlikely.… This missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of those locations. … I doubt if this missile would have left behind it any metallic fragments from its physical appearance at this time. … Metallic fragments were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.374–76)
The other two pathologists, Dr J. Thornton Boswell (ibid., p.377) and Dr Pierre Finck (“there are too many fragments”: ibid., pp.381f), agreed with Dr Humes.
http://22november1963.org.uk/ce-399-magic-bullet-planted-or-genuine
No second shooter has been ID'd in Dealey
No cotton needed
-
No second shooter has been ID'd in Dealey
No cotton needed
No first shooter has been ID'd in Dealey
-
No second shooter has been ID'd in Dealey
No cotton needed
Have you ever heard of the concept of using a decoy?
Meaning, only one rifle was left behind for a reason...
-
Have you ever heard of the concept of using a decoy?
Meaning, only one rifle was left behind for a reason...
I've tried to provide the appropriately-scary music upon hearing the horrible news about a man with not only no name, but also no rifle. How can anyone not weep?
-
In terms of appeal to authority, how does Freeman's citing the POTUS and senior Senator Richard Russell rank?
What I referred to was an appeal to the proven expertise of people with a long-term background in their fields.
Thumb1:
-
In terms of appeal to authority, how does Freeman's citing the POTUS and senior Senator Richard Russell rank?
What I referred to was an appeal to the proven expertise of people with a long-term background in their fields.
Whatever.
However, I just pointed out [in the video] that all this 'Xspurt' stuff didn't seem to impress Senator Russell or the President.
Also...if the single bullet theory is indeed a fact...why is it still called a 'theory'?
Further...C E 399 should be described as 'nearly pristine'... which it is.
So, no one but a fool buys that theory.
-
Whatever.
However, I just pointed out [in the video] that all this 'Xspurt' stuff didn't seem to impress Senator Russell or the President.
Also...if the single bullet theory is indeed a fact...why is it still called a 'theory'?
Further...C E 399 should be described as 'nearly pristine'... which it is.
So, no one but a fool buys that theory.
It's a theory that came to be after they had to consider the likelihood that one of the shots missed the motorcade.
Initially, the FBI concluded that none of the shots missed.
-
Whatever.
However, I just pointed out [in the video] that all this 'Xspurt' stuff didn't seem to impress Senator Russell or the President.
Also...if the single bullet theory is indeed a fact...why is it still called a 'theory'?
Further...C E 399 should be described as 'nearly pristine'... which it is.
So, no one but a fool buys that theory.
Public Service Announcement
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDw2CB46/SAINT-PSA-DIRTY-HARVEY.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p19yk1R/YELLOW-PSA-ABP.png)
-
No first shooter has been ID'd in Dealey
Tools of the trade found in only one location.
-
The major factor was that the bullet, in transiting Kennedy's neck, was barely slowed down and so must have struck something to the front of the President. But no major damage was noted to the vehicle (the dent in the chrome was not thought caused by a bullet at near full-velocity). The SBT became the working theory but only to Connally's back, not the wrist and thigh. Then came the ballistics experts who said the wrist wasn't struck by a full-velocity bullet. So the Commission included the wrist and thigh in the SBT.
That's what follow the evidence means. The "theory" comes last, not first as do all the conspiracy theories.
The Katzenbach memo is proof that there was no good faith effort by the government to rule out a conspiracy. Lawyers don't ask questions that they don't want to know the answer to and politically, the lone assassin narrative is better than trying to explain a conspiracy to the public (whether it was an inside job or done by foreign enemies it would be a political minefield).
The FBI put together a memo shortly after the assassination concluding that none of the shots missed the limo. The injuries suffered by James Teague forced the Warren Commission to consider a theory of how just two bullets caused all the wounds to Kennedy and Connally...
-
The memo didn't mean that Katzenbach believed there was a conspiracy that had to be covered up. It meant that many--going by the first-day evidence and no evidence of other suspects appearing over the weekend--genuinely believed by late Sunday that Oswald was the lone assassin.
In fact, if you dig down into the memo, Katzenbach is concerned about the Dallas police and Texas rightwingers exploiting the assassination to wage a McCarthyist witch-hunt.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and
we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a
Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a
right–wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately
the facts on Oswald seem about too pat — too obvious (Marxist,
Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). 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."
It also shows that Katzenbach thought the rumors were getting out of hand in the wake of Oswald's slaying by Jack Ruby. And that Katzernbach thought "the facts on Oswald seem about too pat".
These were concerns Katzenbach didn't want swept under a rug but presented in a public report ("a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now."), with the hope that the FBI report might suffice. If not:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission
of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and
announce its conclusions."
Katzenbach didn't want the showboating or potential Mccarthyism of a Congressional hearing:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"We need something to head off public speculation
or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."
As already mentioned, the agents at the autopsy reported initial speculation at Bethesda which was later rejected by the pathologists and every subsequent medical review board. By Sunday, the autopsy report had concluded there had been transit of the neck.
Then the Warren Commission followed the evidence that led them to the ingenious Single Bullet Theory (or Fact). Critics are jealous because they have nothing as clever (yet Occam's razoresque) and scientifically-sound that "solves" the assassination. Their lamebrain theories and goofball trajectory gyrations will always come up short.
No, it was more what happened to the near full-velocity bullet that left Kennedy's throat if it didn't damage the limousine. What was forward and slightly to the left of Kennedy that wasn't a part of the vehicle? The Governor.
The memo didn't mean that Katzenbach believed there was a conspiracy that had to be covered up. It meant that many--going by the first-day evidence and no evidence of other suspects appearing over the weekend--genuinely believed by late Sunday that Oswald was the lone assassin.
How in the world do you know what Katzenback believed or intented when he wrote the memo? Did he tell you?
And since when does any serious investigation conclude there was no conspiracy to be covered up within two days after the murder? How is that not a jump to a conclusion?
And since when is a a belief that somebody was a lone assassin enough to write such a memo, when there is no apparent reason for writing such a memo in the first place?
-
The memo didn't mean that Katzenbach believed there was a conspiracy that had to be covered up. It meant that many--going by the first-day evidence and no evidence of other suspects appearing over the weekend--genuinely believed by late Sunday that Oswald was the lone assassin.
You can't really be that gullible. No one could've possibly known for certain within 48 hours of the assassination that no one else was involved.
The Katzenbach memo and all other actions taken by the Johnson administration were due to politics and national security concerns, not a good faith effort to find all the facts about what led up to JFKs murder.
The memo basically admits that Oswald's background is suspicious and invites conspiracy speculation. Duh.
Assuming that Katzenbach, Johnson, and other insiders knew about Oswald's trip to Mexico City weeks before the assassination, I don't buy that he was totally convinced that Oswald acted alone so soon after 11/22/63.
Even if Katzenbach assumed that all the shots were fired by Oswald only, it couldn't be ruled out within 48 hours that a guy who lived in the USSR and had recently traveled to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico had no accomplices.
Katzenbach, Johnson, and others were concerned about the politics, not the truth. This is confirmed by Johnson admitting years later that he didn't believe Oswald acted alone:
"Johnson expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” Johnson said that when he had taken office he found that “we had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.” A year or so before Kennedy’s death a CIA-backed assassination team had been picked up in Havana. Johnson speculated that Dallas had been a retaliation for this thwarted attempt, although he couldn’t prove it".
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/lbj-oswald-wasnt-alone/309486/
RFK, Gerald Ford, and Nixon all expressed similar sentiments in private. Johnson was the only one to say it publicly.
Then the Warren Commission followed the evidence that led them to the ingenious Single Bullet Theory (or Fact). Critics are jealous because they have nothing as clever (yet Occam's razoresque) and scientifically-sound that "solves" the assassination. Their lamebrain theories and goofball trajectory gyrations will always come up short.
There has never been a bullet in history that did what CE399 did and came out looking as clean.
Joe Rogan says it best:
-
You can't really be that gullible. No one could've possibly known for certain within 48 hours of the assassination that no one else was involved.
The Katzenbach memo and all other actions taken by the Johnson administration were due to politics and national security concerns, not a good faith effort to find all the facts about what led up to JFKs murder.
The memo basically admits that Oswald's background is suspicious and invites conspiracy speculation. Duh.
Assuming that Katzenbach, Johnson, and other insiders knew about Oswald's trip to Mexico City weeks before the assassination, I don't buy that he was totally convinced that Oswald acted alone so soon after 11/22/63.
Even if Katzenbach assumed that all the shots were fired by Oswald only, it couldn't be ruled out within 48 hours that a guy who lived in the USSR and had recently traveled to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico had no accomplices.
Katzenbach, Johnson, and others were concerned about the politics, not the truth. This is confirmed by Johnson admitting years later that he didn't believe Oswald acted alone:
"Johnson expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” Johnson said that when he had taken office he found that “we had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.” A year or so before Kennedy’s death a CIA-backed assassination team had been picked up in Havana. Johnson speculated that Dallas had been a retaliation for this thwarted attempt, although he couldn’t prove it".
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/lbj-oswald-wasnt-alone/309486/
RFK, Gerald Ford, and Nixon all expressed similar sentiments in private. Johnson was the only one to say it publicly.
There has never been a bullet in history that did what CE399 did and came out looking as clean.
Joe Rogan says it best:
Tell us why Rogan does not show the butt end of the bullet
Same old, same old with you lot
-
Tell us why Rogan does not show the butt end of the bullet
Same old, same old with you lot
"The butt end" :D
If you fired any bullet into the air and it landed safely on top of a cloud it would look like CE 399.
Explosions from gunpowder does that to the ends of bullets.....duh ::)
-
In his memo, Katzenbach cited only two conspiracies concerning "speculation about Oswald's motivation" he thought should be "rebutted":
- The Dallas Police assertion that the assassination was a communist conspiracy
- The Iron Curtain press assertion that the assassination was a right-wing conspiracy
Neither "conspiracy" had any facts behind them; they were just pulled of their respective asses. Certainly no legitimate facts about a conspiracy or suspects other than Oswald emerged over the weekend and into the following month. With all the evidence that was developed over the weekend, why shouldn't people like Katzenbach and Hoover, and the US networks, allow themselves to believe it appeared to be the wok of a lone-assassin?
Within 48 hours of the assassination and hours after LHO had been murdered live on TV while in police custody, no one at any level of government could honestly know if there was a conspiracy or not. People were not "idiots" or "crazy" for suspecting that there was a conspiracy under those circumstances.
Speculation about conspiracy was totally legit at that time but not good politically for Johnson, who would've had to act militarily if a conspiracy involving the Soviets or even the Cubans were confirmed.
That didn't mean they were going to close off any conspiracy leads that developed or that a potential Presidential Commission would be limited in scope. In later describing what his memo intended, Katzenbach said as much.
It has been claimed by diplomats, intelligence agents, and even some police investigators that they were discouraged from looking into conspiratorial leads shortly after the assassination.
See this story about Ambassador Thomas Mann for example:
Only hours after shots rang out in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, U.S. Ambassador Thomas C. Mann told colleagues in the American embassy in Mexico that he was certain Lee Harvey Oswald had not acted alone in killing JFK...
Back at the State Department, however, a baffled Mann hit a brick wall. No one in Washington seemed interested in his suspicions, he would later complain to colleagues. And within days of the assassination, the ambassador received an astonishing top-secret message directly from Secretary of State Dean Rusk. According to Mann’s testimony years later to congressional investigators, Rusk ordered the embassy to shut down any investigation in Mexico that might “confirm or refute rumors of Cuban involvement in the assassination.” No reason was given for the order, the ambassador said.
Mann told the congressional investigators that he was under the impression that the same “incredible” shut-down order had been given by the CIA to the spy agency’s station chief in Mexico, Winston Scott...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/jfk-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-mexico-116195/
I've seen similar stories about FBI agents and others who were part of the initial investigations. So I don't think we can reasonably conclude that there were no orders to "stop looking into conspiratorial leads".
Detectors to the USSR have been loners. Traveling to Mexico City and visiting foreign consulates and embassies can be done by individuals. Those ties to Oswald does not automatically mean conspiracy.
I agree that those facts alone don't prove conspiracy. However, normal people don't get taught Russian in the Marines before doing a FALSE defection to Russia (he never completed the process of giving up his US citizenship).
And normal people don't hang out with or come into contact with people who were working with or for the CIA as often as Oswald did in his short life.
So either Oswald had a peculiar instinct for identifying and locating people connected to intelligence world, or he had intelligence handlers directing him.
And I've said previously that even if it's true that Oswald was some sort of intelligence asset, it doesn't mean he couldn't have acted alone in killing the President. However, one can be forgiven for suspecting a conspiracy involving domestic or foreign intelligence services given the circumstances of his bio...
I figure most of America didn't even see conspiracy in Ruby's slaying of Oswald; it was frontier justice than the Americans were into at the time with all the Westerns on TV and the "New Frontier" with its take personal responsibility for your actions. If you kill someone, expect to be killed.
You could be right but Ruby carried himself like a mobster, had mob ties, and several people associated with organized crime viewed Ruby's involvement as a sign that organized crime was involved with JFK's assassination.
Also, it was confirmed later that Ruby was an FBI asset who had took some trips to Cuba (nothing suspicious about that right?). So he too had associations with people who were working with the CIA at that time.
http://mafiahistory.us/a001/f_ruby.html
Maybe I should assume that it's totally coincidental that the JFK assassination involved two lone nuts who happened to have links to intelligence spooks and other shady characters who hated JFK.
-
Again, the Katzenbach memo didn't rule every possible conspiracy. Read the memo and there's reference only to two "conspiracies" that, by Sunday, were indeed based purely on speculation.
- The Dallas Police assertion that the assassination was a communist conspiracy
- The Iron Curtain press assertion that the assassination was a right-wing conspiracy
Unless you're telling me those "conspiracies" were indeed factual.
BS...
When Katzenbach wrote;
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
he ruled out any kind of conspiracy.
Or do you think that Oswald could have a conspiracy without any "confederates who are still at large"?
-
By Sunday, what actual evidence of a "conspiracy" was found? Even getting "murdered live on TV while in police custody" doesn't have to mean a conspiracy.
Are you joking or being intellectually dishonest? Hoover, Johnson, and Katzenbach were aware of the Mexico City issue by Sunday:
"Memos were circulating at the highest levels of government concerning Oswald, Kostikov and the latter’s role in KGB assassination operations.30 And over at the FBI the documentary record within the first 24 hours was already considerable. There were those lower down in the FBI who had listened to the tapes, and there were memoranda circulating among the top four men in the FBI and Secret Service Chief James Rowley.31 The situation at CIA was similar. Besides personnel at the CIA Mexico City station, memoranda about the voice comparisons began circulating among senior officials at headquarters by Sunday, November 24th, two days after the assassination. 32
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
The case was open. The Mexico City stuff hadn't been fully investigated at that point and people in the National Security community were suspecting a connection between Oswald's Mexico trip and the assassination.
Clearly, they had reasons to suspect that others might have been involved and it's unreasonable to argue that they ruled out a conspiracy "based on the evidence within the first 48 hours". They hadn't even confirmed Oswald's palm print on the rifle at that point.
You know that, do you? By Sunday, it was increasingly farfetched that Oswald was less a James Bond sleeper agent and more what he actually was: a disgruntled wife-beating malcontent who hated America.
None of which precludes the possibility that he was a patsy or part of a conspiracy.
People who live and work in the intelligence spook and organized crime world are often not as likable in real life as the Hollywood actors who portray spies and contractors in the movies.
For example, many of the Cuban Exiles who participated in the CIA's covert ops against Cuba became contract killers and drug traffickers.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cocaine-cowboys-gave-drug-money-cia-tied-plot-kill-castro-article-1.3532426
I don't assume that anyone who engages in that world is a choir boy. They're not all bad or immoral people but there are lots of shady characters.
I see. Another "gut feeling".
To you, "rumors" are as good as facts.
Diplomats are intelligence agents. They're basically spies but not undercover. Ambassador Mann was in Mexico City at the time. He knew more about the cloak and dagger stuff that was going on down there than you will ever know. You may not like his testimony but you can't easily dismiss it because he was in a position to know about Oswald and the places he visited in Mexico City.
President Johnson saying that he NEVER believed Oswald acted alone isn't a rumor. He said it in an interview. That proves that some who initially endorsed the Warren Commission did so for political expediency.
Historical Context matters.
When the Warren Commission was established were they told that? Was the FBI? Not every conspiracy claim or "gut feeling" will prove out and should be exposed as rumors.
The CIA admits that they hid stuff from the Warren Commission. Other agencies likely did as well. The fact that some agencies hid stuff from the Warren Commission is no longer a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy FACT.
The Katzenbach memo was the origin for what the Warren Commission was intended to do.
JFK had a connection to Sam Giancaca. His father knew lots of Mafia guys. DeMohrenschidt knew Jackie Kennedy when she was a young girl. Lots of coincidental ties. And what CIA officials did Oswald have a close personal relationship with?
I didn't say "CIA officials". I said people with connections to the "intelligence world". The intelligence/spook world is far broader than just the CIA. It includes, the FBI, diplomats, intelligence assets (DeMohrenschildt), contractors (David Ferrie), exile groups financed by the CIA (Carlos Bringuer and the DRE), and foreign intelligence agents.
Throughout his life from his time in the Marines til his death, the intelligence connections are numerous. Far more than your average joe in Texas at that time. In spite of all that, he might've acted alone. I don't assume that the dots connect between those things but there's a lot of smoke.
-
BS...
When Katzenbach wrote;
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
he ruled out any kind of conspiracy.
Or do you think that Oswald could have a conspiracy without any "confederates who are still at large"?
Arguing that the Katzenbach memo didn't intend to shut down conspiracy speculation requires some skilled mental gymnastics.
-
You can't really be that gullible. No one could've possibly known for certain within 48 hours of the assassination that no one else was involved.
Most of the relevant evidence was known within 48 hours. It all pointed to Oswald just as it does nearly six decades later. Any reasonable person would conclude from the evidence that Oswald was assassin. What they didn't want to happen is to be hijacked into WWIII by those who saw a Russians or Cuban conspiracy behind the assassination when there was no credible evidence of such.
-
Arguing that the Katzenbach memo didn't intend to shut down conspiracy speculation requires some skilled mental gymnastics.
Their intent was to separate the lunatics from the people who could name names.
@Tippit, for instance
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Svfbjp/HE-SHOT-THAT-MAN.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p19yk1R/YELLOW-PSA-ABP.png)
-
Most of the relevant evidence was known within 48 hours. It all pointed to Oswald just as it does nearly six decades later. Any reasonable person would conclude from the evidence that Oswald was assassin. What they didn't want to happen is to be hijacked into WWIII by those who saw a Russians or Cuban conspiracy behind the assassination when there was no credible evidence of such.
In other words; they ruled out a conspiracy from day two after not having investigated any possible conspiracy and thus not finding any evidence of such....
So, you agree that Oswald was determined, in less than two days, to be a lone gun man based on no evidence whatsoever. Thumb1:
-
Most of the relevant evidence was known within 48 hours. It all pointed to Oswald just as it does nearly six decades later. Any reasonable person would conclude from the evidence that Oswald was assassin. What they didn't want to happen is to be hijacked into WWIII by those who saw a Russians or Cuban conspiracy behind the assassination when there was no credible evidence of such.
By your logic, Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were unreasonable for suspecting that others were involved.
They didn’t even identify Oswald’s palm print on the rifle within 48 hours (I know the Dallas palm print story but the FBI wasn’t aware of it til days later).
Give me a break.
-
In other words; they ruled out a conspiracy from day two after not having investigated any possible conspiracy and thus not finding any evidence of such....
So, you agree that Oswald was determined, in less than two days, to be a lone gun man based on no evidence whatsoever. Thumb1:
CSI investigations on TV can be solved in an hour. You mean to tell me it doesn’t happen like that in real life? :D
-
CSI investigations on TV can be solved in an hour. You mean to tell me it doesn’t happen like that in real life? :D
:D :D :D
People are way to quick to dismiss evidence when it doesn't fit with their narrative.
-
In other words; they ruled out a conspiracy from day two after not having investigated any possible conspiracy and thus not finding any evidence of such....
So, you agree that Oswald was determined, in less than two days, to be a lone gun man based on no evidence whatsoever. Thumb1:
All the evidence pointed to Oswald. Then and now. He worked in the building from which the shots were fired. His rifle was found there. Bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. He had no credible alibi for the moment at which the shots were fired. He could not explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene but instead lied about his ownership of it. He fled the scene within minutes and murdered a DPD officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. He resisted arrest and assaulted another police officer. He was a known political nut. But it was a "rush to judgement"? HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
-
All the evidence pointed to Oswald. Then and now. He worked in the building from which the shots were fired. His rifle was found there. Bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. He had no credible alibi for the moment at which the shots were fired. He could not explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene but instead lied about his ownership of it. He fled the scene within minutes and murdered a DPD officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. He resisted arrest and assaulted another police officer. He was a known political nut. But it was a "rush to judgement"? HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
It seems the claim is that because at that early stage they hadn't fully looked into a possible conspiracy - and it's true, they hadn't; the FBI among others was still investigating matters, e.g., Mexico City - then Oswald shouldn't have been charged with the murder of JFK?
But that's silly (surprise): Even after charging Oswald that SaPersonay night they continued to investigate the crime. This was the murder of the president not the murder of a 7/11 clerk. Again, as we know the FBI, the CIA, the SS were continuing to investigate matters, to determine if he had help. Indicting him didn't end the entire investigation. They simply had sufficient evidence by SaPersonay night to charge him with the murder of JFK. What did they need to wait for? Whether someone else helped him? Or what exactly?
Even if they found later a conspiracy they could charge his accomplices and Oswald as well with conspiracy and other crimes.
-
All the evidence pointed to Oswald. Then and now. He worked in the building from which the shots were fired. His rifle was found there. Bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. He had no credible alibi for the moment at which the shots were fired. He could not explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene but instead lied about his ownership of it. He fled the scene within minutes and murdered a DPD officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. He resisted arrest and assaulted another police officer. He was a known political nut. But it was a "rush to judgement"? HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
A conspiracy and Oswald’s guilt aren’t mutually exclusive.
President Johnson believed Oswald was guilty but others were involved. Robert Kennedy expressed similar sentiments in private.
The highest levels of government in 1963 didn’t rule out a conspiracy within 48 hours.
-
They simply had sufficient evidence by SaPersonay night to charge him with the murder of JFK.
Evidence you want to share with us?
Sorry, I think that's a "bad faith" question. You're a smart guy even if I disagree with you on this. You know the evidence they had.
You simply think the evidence was planted or faked or manufactured. Fine. You dismiss it. But it existed and they believed in its authenticity.
As to the question again: I do think a fair point can be made that they should have had access to the autopsy report, to the Zapruder film (which I don't think they saw) and other evidence before charging him. They could have charged him with the Tippit shooting (yes, I know you don't think he shot Tippit either) and then waited to indict him for the assassination.
That's my answer and I'm sticking with it <g>. Although I do ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
-
Sorry, I think that's a "bad faith" question. You're a smart guy even if I disagree with you on this. You know the evidence they had.
You simply think the evidence was planted or faked or manufactured. Fine. You dismiss it. But it existed and they believed in its authenticity.
As to the question again: I do think a fair point can be made that they should have had access to the autopsy report, to the Zapruder film (which I don't think they saw) and other evidence before charging him. They could have charged him with the Tippit shooting (yes, I know you don't think he shot Tippit either) and then waited to indict him for the assassination.
That's my answer and I'm sticking with it <g>. Although I do ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Sorry, I think that's a "bad faith" question. You're a smart guy even if I disagree with you on this. You know the evidence they had.
You simply think the evidence was planted or faked or manufactured. Fine. You dismiss it. But it existed and they believed in its authenticity.
Sorry, I think that's a "bad faith" reply. We all know what the evidence was when they finished the investigation and the WC presented it's report, but most of that evidence was not yet known within 48 hours after the assassination.
All they really knew was that Oswald had been arrested for the murder of officer Tippit and was later also charged with the murder of JFK. What they most certainly did not know and could not have known, when Katzenbach wrote his memo, was if there were other people involved.
Ask any murder investigator and he will tell you that you never ever rule out any possible scenario so early in an investigation, regardless of what the (at that point) available evidence seems to indicate. Investigators know that things don't always are as they initially seem to be.
So, Otto asking for the evidence they actually had on November 25th is a fair question.
What also isn't fair is the standard LN claim that CTs think that all the evidence was planted, faked or manufactured, when in fact it simply isn't true, at least not for most of the CTs I know.
-
It seems the claim is that because at that early stage they hadn't fully looked into a possible conspiracy - and it's true, they hadn't; the FBI among others was still investigating matters, e.g., Mexico City - then Oswald shouldn't have been charged with the murder of JFK?
But that's silly (surprise): Even after charging Oswald that SaPersonay night they continued to investigate the crime. This was the murder of the president not the murder of a 7/11 clerk. Again, as we know the FBI, the CIA, the SS were continuing to investigate matters, to determine if he had help. Indicting him didn't end the entire investigation. They simply had sufficient evidence by SaPersonay night to charge him with the murder of JFK. What did they need to wait for? Whether someone else helped him? Or what exactly?
Even if they found later a conspiracy they could charge his accomplices and Oswald as well with conspiracy and other crimes.
Yes, and the FBI would not have just started investigating Oswald on 11.22. He was a known political kook that they had been keeping tabs on for a while. There would have been intelligence sources linking him to a plot with Russia or Cuba to kill the president. Due to Oswald's kooky background, there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination. It is all the more humorous that many CTers make this rush to judgment claim when also suggesting that the objective of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was to create a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia. But in the aftermath, the entire responsibility is put on Oswald and any connection to Cuba/Russia is suppressed by these same conspirators. HA HA HA.
-
Yes, and the FBI would not have just started investigating Oswald on 11.22. He was a known political kook that they had been keeping tabs on for a while. There would have been intelligence sources linking him to a plot with Russia or Cuba to kill the president. Due to Oswald's kooky background, there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination. It is all the more humorous that many CTers make this rush to judgment claim when also suggesting that the objective of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was to create a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia. But in the aftermath, the entire responsibility is put on Oswald and any connection to Cuba/Russia is suppressed by these same conspirators. HA HA HA.
Due to Oswald's kooky background, there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination.
And how did they know that the premise was false? The answer is of course that they didn't, but they needed a patsy to keep up the pretense that Russia or Cuba were not involved even when they possibly were.
Which explains perfectly what Katzenbach wrote in his memo!
-
Yes, and the FBI would not have just started investigating Oswald on 11.22. He was a known political kook that they had been keeping tabs on for a while. There would have been intelligence sources linking him to a plot with Russia or Cuba to kill the president. Due to Oswald's kooky background, there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination. It is all the more humorous that many CTers make this rush to judgment claim when also suggesting that the objective of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was to create a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia. But in the aftermath, the entire responsibility is put on Oswald and any connection to Cuba/Russia is suppressed by these same conspirators. HA HA HA.
No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war.
Conventional Wisdom at the time was that Johnson was a bigger hawk than JFK.
What I find humorous is that some have argued that the government solved the case and ruled out a potential conspiracy within just few hours.
James Angelton, if we assume it was a good faith effort (and not an attempt to divert suspicions of his involvement to a different target), spent years chasing after the theory that the Soviets were involved. And many intelligence officers today still suspect that the Soviets and Cubans put Oswald up to it.
So no, it’s not reasonable to assume that Katzenbach’s memo was intended to shoot down talk of conspiracy theories because they didn’t have reason to suspect that others were involved. They chose to stick to the Lone Assassin narrative in spite of their suspicions.
-
No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war.
Conventional Wisdom at the time was that Johnson was a bigger hawk than JFK.
What I find humorous is that some have argued that the government solved the case and ruled out a potential conspiracy within just few hours.
James Angelton, if we assume it was a good faith effort (and not an attempt to divert suspicions of his involvement to a different target), spent years chasing after the theory that the Soviets were involved. And many intelligence officers today still suspect that the Soviets and Cubans put Oswald up to it.
So no, it’s not reasonable to assume that Katzenbach’s memo was intended to shoot down talk of conspiracy theories because they didn’t have reason to suspect that others were involved. They chose to stick to the Lone Assassin narrative in spite of their suspicions.
So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia but then threw in the towel within 24 hours because LBJ was not on board? Instead they immediately did a complete about face placed all the blame on Oswald and discounted the involvement of anyone else despite that being the entire purpose of murdering the president at enormous risk to themselves? Come on! LOL.
-
So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia but then threw in the towel within 24 hours because LBJ was not on board? Instead they immediately did a complete about face placed all the blame on Oswald and discounted the involvement of anyone else despite that being the entire purpose of murdering the president at enormous risk to themselves? Come on! LOL.
The Cuban Exile group, DRE, started connecting Oswald to Castro immediately after the assassination.
That doesn’t prove the DRE were involved with JFK’s assassination.
My point is, even if they only did it opportunistically, they knew that Oswald, a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, shooting the President was useful to provoke US military action against Cuba.
If they saw it that way, why is it difficult to presume that others who wanted the US to invade Cuba might’ve had the same frame of mind?
—————-
On November 23, members of the Cuban Student Directorate, a CIA-funded organization based in Miami, published a special edition of their monthly magazine, Trinchera (Trenches), in which they linked the accused assassin Lee Oswald to Cuban president Fidel Castro.
This was the first JFK conspiracy scenario to reach public print...
https://jfkfacts.org/nov-23-1963-the-first-jfk-conspiracy-theory-paid-for-by-the-cia/
-
The case was open. The Mexico City stuff hadn't been fully investigated at that point and people in the National Security community were suspecting a connection between Oswald's Mexico trip and the assassination.
The files released under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, revealed the CIA was looking at Oswald while he was in Mexico City in September of 1963 trying to return to the Soviet Union.
The CIA was monitoring the Soviet Union and Cuba's embassies in Mexico City, and they spotted Oswald there in September of 1963. Oswald was trying to get visas to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union right at that time.
-
The files released under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, revealed the CIA was looking at Oswald while he was in Mexico City in September of 1963 trying to return to the Soviet Union.
The CIA was monitoring the Soviet Union and Cuba's embassies in Mexico City, and they spotted Oswald there in September of 1963. Oswald was trying to get visas to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union right at that time.
I’m aware that they were watching him.
There were also unconfirmed rumors of Oswald threatening JFK while in Mexico City and he visited places that were known to be used for meetings with Cuban spies according to the US Ambassador in Mexico.
Even if Oswald’s Mexico City trip had nothing to do with what happened on 11/22, they couldn’t possibly have ruled out a conspiracy within the first 48 hours under those circumstances.
-
So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia but then threw in the towel within 24 hours because LBJ was not on board? Instead they immediately did a complete about face placed all the blame on Oswald and discounted the involvement of anyone else despite that being the entire purpose of murdering the president at enormous risk to themselves? Come on! LOL.
So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia
Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?
It seems to me that the percieved possibility of a war with Cuba or Russia was simply used to limit the scope of the investigation to a lone gunman scenario only.
-
Due to Oswald's kooky background, there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination.
And how did they know that the premise was false? The answer is of course that they didn't, but they needed a patsy to keep up the pretense that Russia or Cuba were not involved even when they possibly were.
Which explains perfectly what Katzenbach wrote in his memo!
The evidence from the very beginning confirmed beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin. Oswald was also a known kook who the FBI and CIA had kept tabs on long prior to 11.22. He didn't just come to their attention on 11.22. The US Government had no intelligence source linking Oswald to any plot with Russia or Cuba at that time. Nevertheless, a full investigation was conducted into the matter and no evidence to the contrary has ever been found. There was a real concern, given Oswald's nutty background, that the public not falsely conclude that Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination (as many CTers allege to this day) and pressure the US into some retaliatory action that could have resulted in WWIII. If you want to conclude, however, that it was premature to reach that conclusion at that time, then knock yourself out. That is not relevant to the critical point that no evidence has ever been found that Russia or Cuba had any involvement in the assassination. Even after nearly six decades. This is just another CTer rabbit hole to evade the relevant point.
-
It seems to me that the percieved possibility of a war with Cuba or Russia was simply used to limit the scope of the investigation to a lone gunman scenario only.
Exactly. That's clear based on the Katzenbach memo and what LBJ told Earl Warren in order to convince him to join the investigation:
"President Lyndon B. Johnson used the fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union to persuade key national leaders to participate in the Warren Commission investigation into the slaying of John F. Kennedy, newly released White House telephone transcripts showed Wednesday.
Records opened by the National Archives reveal that Johnson expressed his worries to Sen. Richard B. Russell of Georgia, once a leader of Southern Democrats, and then Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was to head the commission, that unverified rumors about the involvement of Soviet or Cuban officials in the Kennedy assassination might push the United States into a war that could “kill 40 million Americans in an hour.”"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-09-23-mn-38234-story.html
It's such an obvious fact that it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that in 1963, they intended to seriously investigate the possibility that others were involved. It's more likely that they didn't want to find out if others were involved because the options for how to respond were not desirable.
-
The evidence from the very beginning confirmed beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin. Oswald was also a known kook who the FBI and CIA had kept tabs on long prior to 11.22. He didn't just come to their attention on 11.22. The US Government had no intelligence source linking Oswald to any plot with Russia or Cuba at that time. Nevertheless, a full investigation was conducted into the matter and no evidence to the contrary has ever been found. There was a real concern, given Oswald's nutty background, that the public not falsely conclude that Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination (as many CTers allege to this day) and pressure the US into some retaliatory action that could have resulted in WWIII. If you want to conclude, however, that it was premature to reach that conclusion at that time, then knock yourself out. That is not relevant to the critical point that no evidence has ever been found that Russia or Cuba had any involvement in the assassination. Even after nearly six decades. This is just another CTer rabbit hole to evade the relevant point.
The evidence from the very beginning confirmed beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin.
BS... Oswald was initially arrested for the murder of Tippit.
The US Government had no intelligence source linking Oswald to any plot with Russia or Cuba at that time.
And you know this, how? And even if that's true how does that rule out others being involved in a conspiracy?
Nevertheless, a full investigation was conducted into the matter and no evidence to the contrary has ever been found.
Yeah sure, and we just have to take your word for that, right?
There was a real concern, given Oswald's nutty background, that the public not falsely conclude that Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination (as many CTers allege to this day) and pressure the US into some retaliatory action that could have resulted in WWIII.
More BS... Public pressure has never caused a war.
If you want to conclude, however, that it was premature to reach that conclusion at that time
Of course it was premature and to argue it wasn't is being utterly disingenuous.
That is not relevant to the critical point that no evidence has ever been found that Russia or Cuba had any involvement in the assassination. Even after nearly six decades.
Well, let's see; within 48 hours they said that Oswald was a lone gunman, so why would they investigate any involvement of others in the assassination?
With that in mind, it's hardly surprising that no evidence was ever found that others were involved. For crying out loud, what else would you expect?
Oh, and before you go there, I'm not one of the people claiming that Cuba or Russia were involved in the assassination.
Now, after we've got your word salad out of the way, why not try to answer my question for once?
Here it is again;
So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia
Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?
It seems to me that the percieved possibility of a war with Cuba or Russia was simply used to limit the scope of the investigation to a lone gunman scenario only.
-
The evidence from the very beginning confirmed beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin.
BS... Oswald was initially arrested for the murder of Tippit.
The US Government had no intelligence source linking Oswald to any plot with Russia or Cuba at that time.
And you know this, how? And even if that's true how does that rule out others being involved in a conspiracy?
Nevertheless, a full investigation was conducted into the matter and no evidence to the contrary has ever been found.
Yeah sure, and we just have to take your word for that, right?
There was a real concern, given Oswald's nutty background, that the public not falsely conclude that Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination (as many CTers allege to this day) and pressure the US into some retaliatory action that could have resulted in WWIII.
More BS... Public pressure has never caused a war.
If you want to conclude, however, that it was premature to reach that conclusion at that time
Of course it was premature and to argue it wasn't is being utterly disingenuous.
That is not relevant to the critical point that no evidence has ever been found that Russia or Cuba had any involvement in the assassination. Even after nearly six decades.
Well, let's see; within 48 hours they said that Oswald was a lone gunman, so why would they investigate any involvement of others in the assassination?
With that in mind, it's hardly surprising that no evidence was ever found that others were involved. For crying out loud, what else would you expect?
Oh, and before you go there, I'm not one of the people claiming that Cuba or Russia were involved in the assassination.
Now, after we've got your word salad out of the way, why not try to answer my question for once?
Here it is again;
Classic rabbit hole nonsense. Trying to deflect the discussion onto whether there was a premature rush to conclude Oswald was not working with the Cubans or Russians. We are six decades down the road, and THERE IS STILL NO SUCH EVIDENCE even if that initial conclusion was premature. The matter has now been investigated officially and unofficially to the greatest extent of any crime in world history. There is no evidence that Oswald was working with the Russians or Cubans to assassinate JFK EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE AUTHORITIES WERE PREMATURE IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION. It remains correct. Good grief.
-
Classic rabbit hole nonsense. Trying to deflect the discussion onto whether there was a premature rush to conclude Oswald was not working with the Cubans or Russians. We are six decades down the road, and THERE IS STILL NO SUCH EVIDENCE even if that initial conclusion was premature. The matter has now been investigated officially and unofficially to the greatest extent of any crime in world history. There is no evidence that Oswald was working with the Russians or Cubans to assassinate JFK EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE AUTHORITIES WERE PREMATURE IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION. It remains correct. Good grief.
Why do you keep repeating the same old BS instead of answering my question?
-
No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war.
Conventional Wisdom at the time was that Johnson was a bigger hawk than JFK.
I responded to this post and Martin has now repeatedly asked "Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?" The rabbit hole beckons us once again.
-
I responded to this post and Martin has now repeatedly asked "Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?" The rabbit hole beckons us once again.
There's no rabbit hole or Conspiracy Theory required. These are simple facts.
You can say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that it's obvious that Oswald acted alone. Great.
However, in November 1963, due to Oswald's background and connection to the Soviet Union, many Americans initially speculated that it might have been a Communist conspiracy. President Johnson was among those who speculated that it could be a communist conspiracy. They had no way of ruling out that possibility within just 48 hours.
It wasn't until years later that Americans increasingly began to speculate that it was an inside job involving some combination of the Mob and CIA. In 1963, Robert Kennedy is documented to have asked the CIA director if the CIA was involved but that wasn't known until decades later. I doubt that most people who weren't familiar with covert operations in 1963 (RFK knew more about the covert ops of 1963 than most Americans) even considered the possibility.
-
No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war.
I responded to this post and Martin has now repeatedly asked "Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?" The rabbit hole beckons us once again.
Oh boy...
How in the world does that observation by Jon Banks claim or confirm in any way that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?
The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.... LBJ was indeed fearfull of a war in case a communist conspiracy came to light, and thus did not want go there, but in no way does that mean that the intention of the assassination was to start such a war.
So, it was indeed another one of Richard's strawman! Thumb1:
-
Oh boy...
How in the world does that observation by Jon Banks claim or confirm in any way that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?
The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.... LBJ was indeed fearfull of a war in case a communist conspiracy came to light, and thus did not want go there, but in no way does that mean that the intention of the assassination was to start such a war.
So, it was indeed another one of Richard's strawman! Thumb1:
The LN crowd wants us to believe that a good faith effort was put into investigating and ruling out a potential conspiracy. Nearly all the documents declassified since 1963 contradict that assumption.
The government's first instinct was to go into cover-up mode due to the national security concerns. Which complicated efforts to prove or disprove a potential conspiracy.
-
Oh boy...
How in the world does that observation by Jon Banks claim or confirm in any way that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?
The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.... LBJ was indeed fearfull of a war in case a communist conspiracy came to light, and thus did not want go there, but in no way does that mean that the intention of the assassination was to start such a war.
So, it was indeed another one of Richard's strawman! Thumb1:
Unreal. Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war." Again, "a potential communist conspiracy" covered up to "AVOID A WAR." That is his premise not mine. I simply responded to his point. Obviously, I don't believe there was a coverup of a Communist conspiracy to avoid a war because there was no such conspiracy. You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened! As usual, you have interjected a lot of nonsense to take this discussion down the rabbit hole.
"No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war."
-
There's no rabbit hole or Conspiracy Theory required. These are simple facts.
You can say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that it's obvious that Oswald acted alone. Great.
However, in November 1963, due to Oswald's background and connection to the Soviet Union, many Americans initially speculated that it might have been a Communist conspiracy. President Johnson was among those who speculated that it could be a communist conspiracy. They had no way of ruling out that possibility within just 48 hours.
It wasn't until years later that Americans increasingly began to speculate that it was an inside job involving some combination of the Mob and CIA. In 1963, Robert Kennedy is documented to have asked the CIA director if the CIA was involved but that wasn't known until decades later. I doubt that most people who weren't familiar with covert operations in 1963 (RFK knew more about the covert ops of 1963 than most Americans) even considered the possibility.
We have beat this one to death. Bottom line: even if you conclude that it was premature to rule out a Communist conspiracy to assassinate JFK back in the first days after the assassination, we now live nearly six decades after that time. And there is still no such evidence. Thus, EVEN if your premise is correct, it makes absolutely no difference as to the relevant fact. There was no conspiracy involving Russia or Cuba to assassinate JFK.
-
Unreal. Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war." Again, "a potential communist conspiracy" covered up to "AVOID A WAR." That is his premise not mine. I simply responded to his point. Obviously, I don't believe there was a coverup of a Communist conspiracy to avoid a war because there was no such conspiracy. You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened! As usual, you have interjected a lot of nonsense to take this discussion down the rabbit hole.
"No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war."
You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened!
No, wrong again. I never asked you to prove anything of the kind.
When you claimed "there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination"
I merely asked you how they knew that the premise was false.
And when you subsequently stated;
"So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia but then threw in the towel within 24 hours because LBJ was not on board?"
I asked you where you got the idea from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?
You have failed to answer both questions.
Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war."
Which is exactly what you said. You only added that it was a false premise, without ever being able to explain how they could have known within 48 hours that such a premise was indeed false.
Now, here's the thing; in order for them to conclude (correctly or not) that the premise was false they must have considered the possibility that the intention of the assassination was in fact a pretext to start a war. The problem with that is of course that Hoover concluded on the 24th that Oswald had been a lone gunman. So, how can you consider the act of a lone gunman was intended to start a war?
You either conclude that there was a lone gunman, in which case there is no fear for a possible war or you believe a possible conspiracy was in play with the intention to start a war, you now want to avoid.
The blocking of any kind of serious investigation into a conspiracy from the beginning, to avoid a possible war, clearly suggests that the possibility of such a conspiracy to start a war was most certainly not ruled out, which in turn means that they must have understood from day one that Oswald was not a lone gunman. Or is that too much logic for you?
-
We have beat this one to death. Bottom line: even if you conclude that it was premature to rule out a Communist conspiracy to assassinate JFK back in the first days after the assassination, we now live nearly six decades after that time. And there is still no such evidence. Thus, EVEN if your premise is correct, it makes absolutely no difference as to the relevant fact. There was no conspiracy involving Russia or Cuba to assassinate JFK.
Before you entered the conversation, the point was that someone implied that the Katzenbach memo wasn't intended to discourage investigating conspiratorial leads.
What you believe decades later isn't relevant to what people feared or speculated in the first 48 hours after JFK's assassination...
-
This CIA document show how much was known about Oswald's Mexico City sojourn by 0700 on Sunday (the 24th). ( Link (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32106382.pdf) )
Doesn't seem to be any sign of conspiracy; just Oswald trying to get to Cuba and photos of a man tentatively "believed to be Oswald" not being Oswald.
Since Friday, American intelligence stations around the world were assessing their files and contacts for anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald, and not one sign of conspiracy was obtained, just signs of a malcontent who hated his country. Those high up in the government, like Katzenbach, could look at the weak non-existent evidence of "conspiracy" weighed against the growing lone assassin evidence, and make a preliminary evaluation.
So, let's see if I understand you correctly.
The President of the United States is assassinated and instead of conducting a full blown investigation into all possible theories, the men in charge decided, within 48 hours, to reject the possibility of any kind of conspiracy and decide to focus only on the lone nut theory.
And you see nothing wrong with that picture?
Is that what you are saying? Really?
-
This CIA document show how much was known about Oswald's Mexico City sojourn by 0700 on Sunday (the 24th). ( Link (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32106382.pdf) )
Doesn't seem to be any sign of conspiracy; just Oswald trying to get to Cuba and photos of a man tentatively "believed to be Oswald" not being Oswald.
People involved with the Mexico City investigation in 1963 and 1964 disagreed that there was nothing to see or no reason to be concerned:
"Although the spy agency assured the commission in 1964 that there were no surveillance photos of Oswald in Mexico, CIA Station Chief Scott, in his memoirs, strongly suggested that there were photos, and other CIA officials later told congressional investigators in the 1970s that they recalled seeing the pictures. CIA and FBI records, meanwhile, show that the agencies never tried to track down or interview key witnesses who had encountered Oswald in Mexico.
Slawson is also convinced that someone blocked him from seeing a top-secret June 1964 letter from Hoover to the commission in which Hoover revealed that Oswald may have openly boasted about his plans—“I’m going to kill Kennedy”—while in Mexico, apparently at the Cuban embassy. Slawson believes the CIA was desperate to shut down any investigation in Mexico City out of fear the Warren Commission might stumble onto evidence of the spy agency’s long-running schemes to murder Fidel Castro. (Mexico City had been a staging area for some of the plots.) "
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/jfk-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-mexico-116195/
LBJ and Hoover certainly seemed to be concerned about Oswald's Mexico City trip:
"At 10:00 am on SaPersonay, November 23, President Johnson asked FBI Director Hoover if there was anything new concerning Oswald’s visit in Mexico City (it’s unclear when Johnson first had learned of the Mexico City visit). It was at this point – just 22 hours after the assassination– that Hoover told Johnson about the Kostikov link and that it was not Oswald’s voice on the tape; he had been impersonated..."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
Sorry but there's no way to honestly claim that the FBI and White House could rule out a potential conspiracy within 48 hours given the murkiness and concerns about Oswald's visit to Mexico City.
And rather than investigate to get to the bottom of what Oswald did while in MC, they instead engaged in a cover-up.
-
No. Of course that's not what I'm saying. The Katzenbach memo itself urged the forming of a Presidential Commission. Such a Commission would not be under the control of anyone and would be charged with investigating all the evidence, including "Speculations and Rumors".
Most investigations start with the first-day or 48-hours evidence: the recovered rifle (on Friday, Day thought he had a match of Oswald's fingerprint on the trigger-guard housing), Oswald's flight from the crime scene, his slaying of Officer Tippit; Oswald's obnoxious demeanor and hatred towards authority, the autopsy report with neck transit and two shots fired from above and behind, the limousine with damage and metal fragments forward of where Kennedy sat, the Governor wounded by a shot from above and behind.
Whatever actual conspiracy leads (not "gut feelings" and thoughts) were found on the weekend, let us know.
CTs think the Warren Commission should have started with their "conspiracy leads", "ballistic analysis" and zany "insights" into the Zapruder film developed after the Commission disbanded.
I'll say it again,
"Oswald's guilt" and "a conspiracy plot against JFK" aren't mutually exclusive. You can conclude that he was guilty and still speculate about others being involved.
Johnson admitted that he never believed Oswald acted alone.
The LN community should address these facts:
- The FBI admits it destroyed or manipulated some evidence
- The CIA admits that they didn't tell the Warren Commission everything that they knew at the time
- Members of the Warren Commission admit that they were lied to or kept in the dark about some things
While it's true that in spite of all those things, Oswald may have acted alone, how can anyone still argue that it was a thorough investigation?
-
No. Of course that's not what I'm saying. The Katzenbach memo itself urged the forming of a Presidential Commission. Such a Commission would not be under the control of anyone and would be charged with investigating all the evidence, including "Speculations and Rumors".
Most investigations start with the first-day or 48-hours evidence: the recovered rifle (on Friday, Day thought he had a match of Oswald's fingerprint on the trigger-guard housing), Oswald's flight from the crime scene, his slaying of Officer Tippit; Oswald's obnoxious demeanor and hatred towards authority, the autopsy report with neck transit and two shots fired from above and behind, the limousine with damage and metal fragments forward of where Kennedy sat, the Governor wounded by a shot from above and behind.
Whatever actual conspiracy leads (not "gut feelings" and thoughts) were found on the weekend, let us know.
CTs think the Warren Commission should have started with their "conspiracy leads", "ballistic analysis" and zany "insights" into the Zapruder film developed after the Commission disbanded.
The Katzenbach memo itself urged the forming of a Presidential Commission. Such a Commission would not be under the control of anyone and would be charged with investigating all the evidence, including "Speculations and Rumors".
That doesn't add up with what Katzenbach wrote in the same memo;
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Not only did he rule out any kind of conspiracy ("without any confederates who are still at large") but he also clearly intended to limit the scope of such a Commission's investigation.
Most investigations start with the first-day or 48-hours evidence:
Yes indeed, and very often the first day evidence does not tell the whole or correct story. I don't know of any murder investigation, other than the JFK case, in which investigators discarded a possible line of enquiry within 48 hours. Do you know one?
the recovered rifle (on Friday, Day thought he had a match of Oswald's fingerprint on the trigger-guard housing),
What Day thought was most certainly not known to Hoover on the 24th when he declared Oswald to be the lone gunman, and Katzenbach didn't know it either when he wrote his memo. All they knew about the rifle was that Klein's had sold it to somebody named Hidell.
Oswald's flight from the crime scene, his slaying of Officer Tippit;
Those are conclusions made long after the first 48 hours were over. Sure, Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the killing of Tippit, but that alone did not connect him in any way to the murder of JFK.
Oswald's obnoxious demeanor and hatred towards authority,
Even if true, it would be totally irrelevant for the investigation.
the autopsy report with neck transit and two shots fired from above and behind, the limousine with damage and metal fragments forward of where Kennedy sat, the Governor wounded by a shot from above and behind.
None of this was known within 48 hours.
Whatever actual conspiracy leads (not "gut feelings" and thoughts) were found on the weekend, let us know.
I have no idea. It's a bad faith question. In order to make such a determination, I would first need to know for sure that all the evidence collected has indeed been shown to the public. But, it's BS argument to begin with, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and the mere fact that no leads pointing to a possible conspiracy were found with 48 hours does not mean there wasn't one. You don't call of an investigation into a possible conspiracy within 48 hours after the crime just because you haven't found any leads yet!
CTs think the Warren Commission should have started with their "conspiracy leads", "ballistic analysis" and zany "insights" into the Zapruder film developed after the Commission disbanded.
I'm not really interested in what you think CTs think. My point of view is that they should have conducted a full investigation into all possible theories, but they clearly didn't. LBJ desperately wanted to avoid a war over the assassination and it seems he was willing to ignore the possibility of a conspiracy for fear of what they may find. Far easier to blame it on the lone nut and present a weak case based so much on assumptions and conclusions not justified by the evidence that it failed to convince most of the people.
-
Before you entered the conversation, the point was that someone implied that the Katzenbach memo wasn't intended to discourage investigating conspiratorial leads.
What you believe decades later isn't relevant to what people feared or speculated in the first 48 hours after JFK's assassination...
That's right! Wisdom comes at last grasshopper. What we know with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight trumps whatever real or imagined shortcomings might have occurred in the first 48 hours. And in this case the conclusion that Oswald committed this act all by his lonesome has not been contradicted by any credible evidence in nearly 60 years.
-
That's right! Wisdom comes at last grasshopper. What we know with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight trumps whatever real or imagined shortcomings might have occurred in the first 48 hours. And in this case the conclusion that Oswald committed this act all by his lonesome has not been contradicted by any credible evidence in nearly 60 years.
:D
-
You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened!
No, wrong again. I never asked you to prove anything of the kind.
When you claimed "there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination"
I merely asked you how they knew that the premise was false.
And when you subsequently stated;
"So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia but then threw in the towel within 24 hours because LBJ was not on board?"
I asked you where you got the idea from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?
You have failed to answer both questions.
Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war."
Which is exactly what you said. You only added that it was a false premise, without ever being able to explain how they could have known within 48 hours that such a premise was indeed false.
Now, here's the thing; in order for them to conclude (correctly or not) that the premise was false they must have considered the possibility that the intention of the assassination was in fact a pretext to start a war. The problem with that is of course that Hoover concluded on the 24th that Oswald had been a lone gunman. So, how can you consider the act of a lone gunman was intended to start a war?
You either conclude that there was a lone gunman, in which case there is no fear for a possible war or you believe a possible conspiracy was in play with the intention to start a war, you now want to avoid.
The blocking of any kind of serious investigation into a conspiracy from the beginning, to avoid a possible war, clearly suggests that the possibility of such a conspiracy to start a war was most certainly not ruled out, which in turn means that they must have understood from day one that Oswald was not a lone gunman. Or is that too much logic for you?
So many words twisting like a pretzel. Let's simplify. EVEN if you want to believe that there was a premature conclusion that excluded consideration of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the first days after the assassination, no such evidence has come to light in nearly six decades. Other official and unofficial investigations have come to the same conclusion. CTers have beaten the bushes for decades - and found nothing. The US intelligence service has resources that extend beyond investigating Oswald. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement of Russia or Cuba. That is the relevant point. Whether Katzenbach was "premature" in reaching this conclusion is a rabbit hole tangent. CTers require a conspiracy cover up to explain away their lack of evidence to support their pet theory. The Catch-22 of dealing with JFK CTers. We don't have the evidence because it was covered up. The UFO line of bull.
-
So many words twisting like a pretzel. Let's simplify. EVEN if you want to believe that there was a premature conclusion that excluded consideration of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the first days after the assassination, no such evidence has come to light in nearly six decades. Other official and unofficial investigations have come to the same conclusion. CTers have beaten the bushes for decades - and found nothing. The US intelligence service has resources that extend beyond investigating Oswald. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement of Russia or Cuba. That is the relevant point. Whether Katzenbach was "premature" in reaching this conclusion is a rabbit hole tangent. CTers require a conspiracy cover up to always avoid acknowledging the lack of evidence to support their pet theory. The Catch-22 of dealing with JFK CTers. We don't have the evidence because it was covered up. The UFO line of bull.
That's not a simplification, it's just the same old BS you have been posting
EVEN if you want to believe that there was a premature conclusion that excluded consideration of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the first days after the assassination, no such evidence has come to light in nearly six decades.
Meaningless statement, given the fact that within 48 hours after the assassination they decided Oswald did it alone causing a possible conspiracy ever being seriously investigated, which explains the lack of evidence.
Other official and unofficial investigations have come to the same conclusion.
All subsequent investigations used the same evidence as the WC did. Garbage in = Garbage out
The US intelligence service has resources that extend beyond investigating Oswald.
And what motivation would the US intelligence service have to investigate beyond Oswald, when they already know what the official story is? They have nothing to gain...
Whether Katzenbach was "premature" in reaching this conclusion is a rabbit hole tangent.
Katzenback wasn't alone in reaching that conclusion. Hoover reached the same conclusion on the 24th.
High ranking Government officials concluding there was no conspiracy within 24 to 48 hours after the assassination is highly relevant. Even more so since it clearly caused a limited investigation.
CTers require a conspiracy cover up to always avoid acknowledging the lack of evidence to support their pet theory.
BS. LBJ wanted to avoid a war, yet still did not believe Oswald acted alone. There's the cover up for you.
-
That's not a simplification, it's just the same old BS you have been posting
EVEN if you want to believe that there was a premature conclusion that excluded consideration of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the first days after the assassination, no such evidence has come to light in nearly six decades.
Meaningless statement, given the fact that within 48 hours after the assassination they decided Oswald did it alone causing a possible conspiracy ever being seriously investigated, which explains the lack of evidence.
Other official and unofficial investigations have come to the same conclusion.
All subsequent investigations used the same evidence as the WC did. Garbage in = Garbage out
The US intelligence service has resources that extend beyond investigating Oswald.
And what motivation would the US intelligence service have to investigate beyond Oswald, when they already know what the official story is? They have nothing to gain...
Whether Katzenbach was "premature" in reaching this conclusion is a rabbit hole tangent.
Katzenback wasn't alone in reaching that conclusion. Hoover reached the same conclusion on the 24th.
High ranking Government officials concluding there was no conspiracy within 24 to 48 hours after the assassination is highly relevant. Even more so since it clearly caused a limited investigation.
CTers require a conspiracy cover up to always avoid acknowledging the lack of evidence to support their pet theory.
BS. LBJ wanted to avoid a war, yet still did not believe Oswald acted alone. There's the cover up for you.
You are stuck on the rabbit hole tangent as to whether some individual prematurely came to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy. That point was relevant six decades ago. This is 2021, however, and with six decades of official and unofficial investigations there is no credible evidence of the involvement of the USSR or Cuba in the assassination. The conspiracy theorist needs a cover up to explain why they never have any evidence to support their pet theory. The answer is always because someone has precluded its recovery. An endless loop of lunacy. But knock yourself out like those UFO believers who make the same claim to explain why they never have any actual evidence of little green men.
-
You are stuck on the rabbit hole tangent as to whether some individual prematurely came to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy. That point was relevant six decades ago. This is 2021, however, and with six decades of official and unofficial investigations there is no credible evidence of the involvement of the USSR or Cuba in the assassination. The conspiracy theorist needs a cover up to explain why they never have any evidence to support their pet theory. The answer is always because someone has precluded its recovery. An endless loop of lunacy. But knock yourself out like those UFO believers who make the same claim to explain why they never have any actual evidence of little green men.
The HSCA concluded that there probably was a conspiracy.
National Security insiders from RFK to John Kerry speculated that Oswald didn't act alone.
The US government now admits that UFOs are real.
US Report Can't Explain UFOs, But Says They're Likely Real and Possibly a National Security Threat
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/25/us-report-cant-explain-ufos-says-theyre-likely-real-and-possibly-national-security-threat.html
-
You are stuck on the rabbit hole tangent as to whether some individual prematurely came to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy. That point was relevant six decades ago. This is 2021, however, and with six decades of official and unofficial investigations there is no credible evidence of the involvement of the USSR or Cuba in the assassination. The conspiracy theorist needs a cover up to explain why they never have any evidence to support their pet theory. The answer is always because someone has precluded its recovery. An endless loop of lunacy. But knock yourself out like those UFO believers who make the same claim to explain why they never have any actual evidence of little green men.
You seem to be one of those people who do not feed their dog and then wonder why the animal died of starvation.
If an investigation into a possible conspiracy is blocked within 48 hours, by Hoover and Katzenbach and others concluding - probably to avoid a possible war - that there had not been a conspiracy, you can not by any stretch of the imagination credibly ask for evidence of such a possible conspiracy to be produced.
The mere fact that a possible conspiracy, involving Russia and/or Cuba, was being considered in those early days should have triggered the biggest investigation ever. The fact that it didn't, to avoid a war, indicates that no good faith effort to uncover the truth was ever made.
-
"The report gives no indication the UAPs' [unidentified aerial phenomena] origins are extraterrestrial."
There's a difference between acknowledging UFOs as "unidentified" (the government has records of unidentified aerial phenomena going back to the 1940s) and then taking the final step based on "gut feeling" that they're from other planets.
It wasn't my intention to argue that the US government confirmed that extra-terrestrials are real. My point is, the government admits that the UFO phenomena is real and they don't rule out that it could be ET's.
So it's a little strange to call people CT'ers for speculating that the UFOs could be from other planets when no one seems to have an explanation for the source of the UAPs.
I personally believe the US government intentionally creates ambiguity around the UFO issue in order to cover their testing of new and advanced military technologies. They have admitted to doing so in the past.
1997 - C.I.A. Admits Government Lied About U.F.O. Sightings
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/cia-admits-government-lied-about-ufo-sightings.html
I'm not someone who thinks all the UFO reports are proof of extra-terrestrials but I don't think it's crazy or makes someone a "CT'er" to speculate that it could be.
Same with the "conspiracy" indications coming in the weekend of the Katzenbach memo. A "communist conspiracy" the Dallas police were pulling out of their ass and the "right-wing conspiracy" the Soviet press were pulling out of their ass. There was the fear that a political-based Congressional Committee would invent and parade a "communist conspiracy" by way of McCarthyism. When Katzenbach wrote his memo, there was no reason for high-up law enforcement and justice department officials to take the next step based on "gut feeling" and declare such "conspiracy" claims were legitimate especially when all the evidence being gathered pointed exclusively to Oswald's sole guilt.
Likewise, there was no reason to say "the public must be convinced that Oswald acted alone" hours after Oswald was killed, if they intended to fully investigate the case.
Let's make sure we're on the same page on this debate.
At the time of the Katzenbach memo, it was reasonable for them to assume that Oswald was guilty even though there were still some loose ends and they weren't aware that Oswald's palm print would soon be ID'd on the rifle (by Dallas PD not the FBI). Most of the criticism of the Dallas PD and the Warren Report didn't surface until after the Report was published. So there was no large constituency of people at the time of the memo, who thought Oswald might be innocent.
So why even write the memo?
Because there was a huge amount of speculation, even in the White House, that others were involved. Mountains of evidence support my view. We know about J Edgar Hoover's phone calls with LBJ that weekend. We know about RFK's conversation with CIA director, McCone. We know that high level intelligence officials in Mexico City were alarmed by reports about Oswald's trip (his meeting with KGB people and rumors that he threatened to kill JFK while in MC).
So while it was reasonable for Katzenbach and others to presume that Oswald was "guilty" 48 hours after the assassination, it was not reasonable for them to conclude that no one else was involved at that stage of the investigation. They had reasons for their suspicions about a Communist conspiracy and it wasn't limited to Oswald having lived in the USSR.
The Katzenbach Memo and Johnson's instructions to Earl Warren prove that they never intended to publicly address concerns about conspiracy in JFK's assassination by conducting a good faith investigation.
Privately, due to the information we've learned in the decades since, we know that they were very concerned about a conspiracy.
-
... due to Oswald's background and connection to the Soviet Union, many Americans initially speculated that it might have been a Communist conspiracy. President Johnson was among those who speculated that it could be a communist conspiracy. They had no way of ruling out that possibility within just 48 hours.
This was among the files released and posted yesterday-----
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32107844.pdf
It mentions a $100K bounty on the life of JFK. It didn't seem like anyone was all that excited about it.
I believe that LBJ knew damn well right from the start that there was no Soviet plot.
-
This was among the files released and posted yesterday-----
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32107844.pdf
It mentions a $100K bounty on the life of JFK. It didn't seem like anyone was all that excited about it.
I believe that LBJ knew damn well right from the start that there was no Soviet plot.
The Soviets goal was always to control America.
-
The Soviets goal was always to control America.
Who told you that?
-
Who told you that?
It's a known fact.
-
Oh well then, varmint-hunters LBJ and Russell trump the experts used by the Warren Commission and HSCA, the 2004 "Beyond the Magic Bullet" documentary and Luke and Michael Haag (NOVA 2013).
I'm sure -- in the CT and CT-"skeptic" world -- some ambulance drivers and orderlies are better able to speak on the medical aspects than, for example, the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.
Hi Jerry, You may want to add Mrs. Kennedy's name when mentioning the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. No, she's not a pathologist, but what she told Theodore White during his interview with her just 7 days after the assassination about the condition of JFK's head--which is quite graphic and quite reliable--she describes a much different head wound location than the CT crowd claims--and she repeated it twice not only does she say where the head wound was, she also described how and where on the head she was trying to keep ["His] brains in".
-
Hi Jerry, You may want to add Mrs. Kennedy's name when mentioning the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. No, she's not a pathologist, but what she told Theodore White during his interview with her just 7 days after the assassination about the condition of JFK's head--which is quite graphic and quite reliable--she describes a much different head wound location than the CT crowd claims--and she repeated it twice not only does she say where the head wound was, she also described how and where on the head she was trying to keep ["His] brains in".
In the real world, the wound suffered by a victim is just that; one wound of a certain description, which should be supported by all those who saw the wound, either at Parkland or during the autopsy.
So, where is this discrepancy coming from? One the one hand you have the official narrative and on the other you have all sorts of people who actually saw the wound who seriously disagree with eachother. How in the world can anybody dismiss all those witnesses that saw something different than what the official narrative is telling us. Are they all mistaken or liars, even when they have nothing to gain from sticking by their observations?
Paul O'Connor was supposed to have removed Kennedy's brain and when he tried to do that he found that was hardly anything there to remove. They then told him to keep his mouth shut about what he had seen at the autopsy. Only when the HSCA wanted to talk to him, he was released from the order to remain silent. And that's when he told what he really saw. Did he, and others, make it all up?
Just stop and think about it for a minute. The official narrative tells you one thing and multiple people who actually saw the wound tell you something different. Did they all get together and make up this story? Did they stand to make money out of it? Of course not, so why do all these people tell a different story, if in fact the official story is the only true one?
-
The Soviets goal was always to control America.
Between 1947 and 1989, the United States tried to change other nations’ governments 72 times ... It includes 66 covert operations and six overt ones.
It's a known fact.
During the Cold War, for instance, 26 of the United States’ covert operations successfully brought a U.S.-backed government to power; the remaining 40 failed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/
-
Between 1947 and 1989, the United States tried to change other nations’ governments 72 times ... It includes 66 covert operations and six overt ones.
It's a known fact.
During the Cold War, for instance, 26 of the United States’ covert operations successfully brought a U.S.-backed government to power; the remaining 40 failed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/
"We will take America without firing a shot" - Nikita Khrushchev
-
"We will take America without firing a shot" - Nikita Khrushchev
Migrants from Latin-America have already done this ;)
-
Migrants from Latin-America have already done this ;)
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”
-
Between 1947 and 1989, the United States tried to change other nations’ governments 72 times ... It includes 66 covert operations and six overt ones.
It's a known fact.
During the Cold War, for instance, 26 of the United States’ covert operations successfully brought a U.S.-backed government to power; the remaining 40 failed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/
In the world today, while the limousine was on its way to Parkland between Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital, unfortunately, Mrs. Kennedy would be considered as having "tampered with evidence" because she altered the damage to the head the moment she put the piece of skull she said she saw "detach itself" back into place, and "tried to keep his brains in" as she " kept trying to hold the top of his head down". This is the flap of inside-out skull we can clearly see in the Zapruder film as well as two publicly released photos taken during the autopsy. The two pictures that show the skull flap hanging over the temple area are the back of the head photos, and the photograph of the measuring the distance from the neck to the back wound--and most copies of the back wound are cropped and do not show this. At any rate...Mrs. Kennedy closed the hole in the head up as much as she could by putting the flap back into place since it was still connected to the scalp, so, when the president was taken into the ER and the doctors saw only part of the hole in the head--this is where the discrepancy comes from. Bill and Gayle Newman described what they saw from 10 feet away. The large flap of skull hanging over the temple was visible to them, and Mrs. Newman describes this during her interview with WFAA's Jay Watson. Marilyn Sitzman said the damage "was between the eye and the ear", so she no doubt saw the inside-out flap of skull, mistaking it as a wound.. We see the top of Kennedy's head fly off in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. Parts of the skull landed in the grass several yards ahead of where the limousine was positioned at the time of the fatal shot. The Harper fragment, found by Billy Harper, and a fragment found by David Burris, which was turned over to Detective R.L. Studebaker in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Burris marked on a photograph of the infield grass where he found the skull fragment. This fragment was flown to Washington from Dallas per document. So, I believe that due to the loose skull piece hanging over the temple being put back into place by Mrs. Kennedy, this is the major part of the reason for the discrepancy over the location of--and damage of the head wound.
Where people like Paul O'Conner are concerned...I saw Vincent Bugliosi question Paul O'Conner about his claim that there was no brain being in the head--or very little of it-- and I find it difficult to believe such a thing happened when there are photographs vividly showing the brain hanging out of the massive hole in top of the head. And I thought Vince did a good job at proving Paul O'Conner's story is impossible.
It seems to me that conspiracy believers want to disregard people like the Newman's, Zapruder and Sitzman, and most importantly, Mrs. Kennedy. She flat-out says the top of his head was gone and that she was holding his brains in her hands. She had the first and best view of JFK's head over anyone else that day.
-
Hi Jerry, You may want to add Mrs. Kennedy's name when mentioning the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. No, she's not a pathologist, but what she told Theodore White during his interview with her just 7 days after the assassination about the condition of JFK's head--which is quite graphic and quite reliable--she describes a much different head wound location than the CT crowd claims--and she repeated it twice not only does she say where the head wound was, she also described how and where on the head she was trying to keep ["His] brains in".
Jackie: 'Top, behind the forehead'
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJjBZdKW/Top-behind-the-forehead.png)
-
In the world today, while the limousine was on its way to Parkland between Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital, unfortunately, Mrs. Kennedy would be considered as having "tampered with evidence" because she altered the damage to the head the moment she put the piece of skull she said she saw "detach itself" back into place, and "tried to keep his brains in" as she " kept trying to hold the top of his head down". This is the flap of inside-out skull we can clearly see in the Zapruder film as well as two publicly released photos taken during the autopsy. The two pictures that show the skull flap hanging over the temple area are the back of the head photos, and the photograph of the measuring the distance from the neck to the back wound--and most copies of the back wound are cropped and do not show this. At any rate...Mrs. Kennedy closed the hole in the head up as much as she could by putting the flap back into place since it was still connected to the scalp, so, when the president was taken into the ER and the doctors saw only part of the hole in the head--this is where the discrepancy comes from. Bill and Gayle Newman described what they saw from 10 feet away. The large flap of skull hanging over the temple was visible to them, and Mrs. Newman describes this during her interview with WFAA's Jay Watson. Marilyn Sitzman said the damage "was between the eye and the ear", so she no doubt saw the inside-out flap of skull, mistaking it as a wound.. We see the top of Kennedy's head fly off in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. Parts of the skull landed in the grass several yards ahead of where the limousine was positioned at the time of the fatal shot. The Harper fragment, found by Billy Harper, and a fragment found by David Burris, which was turned over to Detective R.L. Studebaker in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Burris marked on a photograph of the infield grass where he found the skull fragment. This fragment was flown to Washington from Dallas per document. So, I believe that due to the loose skull piece hanging over the temple being put back into place by Mrs. Kennedy, this is the major part of the reason for the discrepancy over the location of--and damage of the head wound.
Where people like Paul O'Conner are concerned...I saw Vincent Bugliosi question Paul O'Conner about his claim that there was no brain being in the head--or very little of it-- and I find it difficult to believe such a thing happened when there are photographs vividly showing the brain hanging out of the massive hole in top of the head. And I thought Vince did a good job at proving Paul O'Conner's story is impossible.
It seems to me that conspiracy believers want to disregard people like the Newman's, Zapruder and Sitzman, and most importantly, Mrs. Kennedy. She flat-out says the top of his head was gone and that she was holding his brains in her hands. She had the first and best view of JFK's head over anyone else that day.
Where people like Paul O'Conner are concerned...I saw Vincent Bugliosi question Paul O'Conner about his claim that there was no brain being in the head--or very little of it-- and I find it difficult to believe such a thing happened when there are photographs vividly showing the brain hanging out of the massive hole in top of the head. And I thought Vince did a good job at proving Paul O'Conner's story is impossible.
First of all, we can argue about what O'Connor meant when he said there was no brain in the head. If you think that he was saying there was no brain at all, I would agree that would be unlikely as it seems impossible for all brain matter to have been blasted out. However, if you think that what O'Connor really meant was that there was no complete brain to be removed, then, I believe, you would be closer to the truth. We know for a fact that the brain could not have been intact, as there was brain matter all over the limo and the police officers driving behind the limo were also covered in it. To me it seems not unreasonable to conclude that O'Connor only saw remnants of the brain and concluded that there was no sufficiently intact brain that could be removed.
Sadly, credible witnesses are not always good on the stand. The video you refer to shows O'Connor being extremely nervous, making him an easy prey for an experienced lawyer like Bugliosi. The fact remains that he told the same story on the stand as he did to the HSCA. And that's not all, his testimony is supported by others, like Tom Robinson, who was involved in the embalming of the body, which included filling up the hole in the head.
If you want to dismiss the testimony of O'Connor and others, you need at least try to explain what these men had to gain by lying so many years after the fact. O'Connor respected the order to remain silent for 14 years before he ever told his story and Tom Robinson never wanted to be in the limelight. So what motivated these men to lie?
-
Hadn't the brain been removed when the funeral people arrived?
Good question. One would indeed expect that to be the case, but in this case it seems to me that O'Connor never performed the procedure to remove the top of the skull.
I am speculating, but there are two reasons for that assumptions. The first one is that in order to remove the top of the cranial vault the scalp has to be cut and pulled forward. Then the skull has to be opened up with a vibrating saw. Given the state of the skull, as seen on some photographs and X-rays, I would argue that if the scalp was cut and the top of the skull was removed a large part of that skull would fall apart. When Paul O'Connor was asked, at the mock trial, if he had opened the brain he said, at about 6.35; "we didn't have to"
And secondly, there is a video in which Tom Robinson explains in detail what the hole was like that the embalmers had to work on.
-
Good question. One would indeed expect that to be the case, but in this case it seems to me that O'Connor never performed the procedure to remove the top of the skull.
I am speculating, but there are two reasons for that assumptions. The first one is that in order to remove the top of the cranial vault the scalp has to be cut and pulled forward. Then the skull has to be opened up with a vibrating saw. Given the state of the skull, as seen on some photographs and X-rays, I would argue that if the scalp was cut and the top of the skull was removed a large part of that skull would fall apart. When Paul O'Connor was asked, at the mock trial, if he had opened the brain he said, at about 6.35; "we didn't have to"
And secondly, there is a video in which Tom Robinson explains in detail what the hole was like that the embalmers had to work on.
Here's the section of the 'Last Second In Dallas' doc that discusses the headshot(s). It sounds like Kennedy lost a bunch of brain matter before he reached Parkland hospital. The Blood spatter analysis seems consistent with the trajectory of two different shots to Kennedy's head. (starts at around the 1hr and 10 minutes point).
-
Here's the section of the 'Last Second In Dallas' doc that discusses the headshot(s). It sounds like Kennedy lost a bunch of brain matter before he reached Parkland hospital. The Blood spatter analysis seems consistent with the trajectory of two different shots to Kennedy's head. (starts at around the 1hr and 10 minutes point).
Which brings us to one of those questions a LN will never be able/willing to answer;
How can a brain be removed at autopsy from Kennedy's head, when the evidence shows that a large part of the matter had been blasted out when Kennedy was shot?
-
Which brings us to one of those questions a LN will never be able/willing to answer;
How can a brain be removed at autopsy from Kennedy's head, when the evidence shows that a large part of the matter had been blasted out when Kennedy was shot?
I'm very willing to answer it!
First of all, you're calling Mrs. Kennedy a liar when she said she was holding his brains in her hand. Did you ever read the interview by Theodore White that I mentioned? She repeatedly said she "Was trying to hold the TOP OF HIS HEAD DOWN...maybe I could keep it ("his brains") in. Like it or not, that's exactly what you're doing.
Secondly, Even Clint Hill said"the brain was exposed" to the Warren Commission.
Thirdly, According to Dr. Michael Baden--and you can read this in the End Notes of Reclaiming History by Bugliosi--that there wasn't that much of the brain missing. I can't recall exactly at the moment, but he said it was only a few ouces of the actual brain that was missing.
The matter that landed on Hargis and Martin did not "Cover them". You are exaggerating. All Martin testified that was on him was blood droplets and small particles of brain or human flesh. They were on the right side of his helmet, and the shoulder of his uniform, and tiny droplets of blood on the cowling of his motorcycle. It's in his Warren Commission testimony.
Hargis, said that he was struck with "blood and brain and kind of a bloody water". In the Zapruder film--and this is something no one ever mentions--the fine mist from the head explosion that surrounds the head of JFK travels up and is clearly captured in the breeze and is immediately blown to the rear onto the officers and what Clint Hill now says landed on him. And it is this fine mist with minute particles, the bloody water and blood, and small particles of brain that landed on Hargis, Martin and Clint Hill as he ran to catch the limousine. Its in the clearest versions of the Zapruder film. All one has to do is look at it.
With Paul O'Conner...I think you should read Reclaiming History, and watch and listen to his testimony during the Mock Trial with Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
The heaviest of the head matter went forward onto the Connallys, Greer, Kellerman, the interior of the limousine, seats, the inside side panels side rails, windshield, sun visors (both sides) hood, and minute particles on the trunk lid. This is all noted in the notes and sketches by FBI agent Robert Frazier who had the tediosu job along with another (unamed) agent of sifting through every inch of the limousine, inside and out. The afore mentioned skull fragments i.e. the Burros and Harper fragments were both found southwest in the grass-- the Burris fragment to the immediate east of the manhole cover, the Harper fragment nearer to the underpass. Harper marked on a map of Dealey Plaza the approximate location of the fragment. The fragment that flew off Kennedy's head were estimated to be traveling at 80MPH by Dr. John Lattimer.
-
I'm very willing to answer it!
First of all, you're calling Mrs. Kennedy a liar when she said she was holding his brains in her hand. Did you ever read the interview by Theodore White that I mentioned? She repeatedly said she "Was trying to hold the TOP OF HIS HEAD DOWN...maybe I could keep it ("his brains") in. Like it or not, that's exactly what you're doing.
Secondly, Even Clint Hill said"the brain was exposed" to the Warren Commission.
Thirdly, According to Dr. Michael Baden--and you can read this in the End Notes of Reclaiming History by Bugliosi--that there wasn't that much of the brain missing. I can't recall exactly at the moment, but he said it was only a few ouces of the actual brain that was missing.
The matter that landed on Hargis and Martin did not "Cover them". You are exaggerating. All Martin testified that was on him was blood droplets and small particles of brain or human flesh. They were on the right side of his helmet, and the shoulder of his uniform, and tiny droplets of blood on the cowling of his motorcycle. It's in his Warren Commission testimony.
Hargis, said that he was struck with "blood and brain and kind of a bloody water". In the Zapruder film--and this is something no one ever mentions--the fine mist from the head explosion that surrounds the head of JFK travels up and is clearly captured in the breeze and is immediately blown to the rear onto the officers and what Clint Hill now says landed on him. And it is this fine mist with minute particles, the bloody water and blood, and small particles of brain that landed on Hargis, Martin and Clint Hill as he ran to catch the limousine. Its in the clearest versions of the Zapruder film. All one has to do is look at it.
With Paul O'Conner...I think you should read Reclaiming History, and watch and listen to his testimony during the Mock Trial with Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
The heaviest of the head matter went forward onto the Connallys, Greer, Kellerman, the interior of the limousine, seats, the inside side panels side rails, windshield, sun visors (both sides) hood, and minute particles on the trunk lid. This is all noted in the notes and sketches by FBI agent Robert Frazier who had the tediosu job along with another (unamed) agent of sifting through every inch of the limousine, inside and out. The afore mentioned skull fragments i.e. the Burros and Harper fragments were both found southwest in the grass-- the Burris fragment to the immediate east of the manhole cover, the Harper fragment nearer to the underpass. Harper marked on a map of Dealey Plaza the approximate location of the fragment. The fragment that flew off Kennedy's head were estimated to be traveling at 80MPH by Dr. John Lattimer.
You are not answering the question. Instead you are minimizing and misrepresenting the evidence.
First of all, you're calling Mrs. Kennedy a liar when she said she was holding his brains in her hand.
What exactly is this remark by Mrs. Kennedy supposed to prove? Please describe exactly what Mrs. Kennedy meant by that comment and please explain how I am calling her a liar by saying that a large part of the brain matter was blown out of Kennedy's head.
Secondly, Even Clint Hill said"the brain was exposed" to the Warren Commission.
Again, what do you think this remark proves? Hill said he saw a big hole in the President's head, so naturally the brain would be exposed, but do you really think Hill was able to have a closer look while hanging on the trunk of the limo?
Thirdly, According to Dr. Michael Baden--and you can read this in the End Notes of Reclaiming History by Bugliosi--that there wasn't that much of the brain missing. I can't recall exactly at the moment, but he said it was only a few ouces of the actual brain that was missing.
Baden wasn't present at Parkland Hospital and/or the autopsy. His opinion is of little consequence.
With Paul O'Conner...I think you should read Reclaiming History, and watch and listen to his testimony during the Mock Trial with Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
I'm not really interested in Bugliosi's opinion. And I did watch O'Connor's testimony during the mock trial. In fact, the video is posted in my previous post. I'm not sure what you think I am supposed to see. If you want to call O'Connor, and others, a liar, you should at least try to answer my question about what his/their motivation would have been to lie.
The heaviest of the head matter went forward onto the Connallys, Greer, Kellerman, the interior of the limousine, seats, the inside side panels side rails, windshield, sun visors (both sides) hood, and minute particles on the trunk lid. This is all noted in the notes and sketches by FBI agent Robert Frazier who had the tediosu job along with another (unamed) agent of sifting through every inch of the limousine, inside and out.
Frazier only examined the limo, by itself, at the Secret Service garage in Washington. There is no question that brain matter was scattered over the car and when one views the limo alone it can easily seem that most of the matter went forward, but without examining the Secret Service car and the two motorcycles that would be a conclusion based upon incomplete. information.
-
What exactly is this remark by Mrs. Kennedy supposed to prove? Please describe exactly what Mrs. Kennedy meant by that comment and please explain how I am calling her a liar by saying that a large part of the brain matter was blown out of Kennedy's head.
You say that I am "misrepresenting" the evidence? Look what you just did. You didn't include the things I said *AFTER* I said what you quoted above, which answers your question. The brain was coming out of the hole on the top of his head. Not the rear or side of the head as conspiracy believers contend-- the TOP, just as the autopsy photos of the top of the head reveal, as well as what we see flying off the top of JFK's head in the 3 films I mentioned.
Secondly, Even Clint Hill said"the brain was exposed" to the Warren Commission.
Again, what do you think this remark proves? Hill said he saw a big hole in the President's head, so naturally the brain would be exposed, but do you really think Hill was able to have a closer look while hanging on the trunk of the limo?
Again, you're misrepresenting the facts, not I. Hill didn't remain on the trunk of the car the entire trip to Parkland. He climbed into the back seat on the way to Parkland. Photographs, and testimony prove this. This is how Hill could have easily had a closer look once he was inside the car. There's even one picture taken on Stemmons where he is standing on the seat looking down into the seat compartment. It's included in the book "The Torch Is Passed". Look at all the pictures and film showing Hill inside the vehicle. So, in answer to your question, it proves that the brain--other than the right hemisphere being badly damaged was intact and still in the head.
Thirdly, According to Dr. Michael Baden--and you can read this in the End Notes of Reclaiming History by Bugliosi--that there wasn't that much of the brain missing. I can't recall exactly at the moment, but he said it was only a few ouces of the actual brain that was missing.
Baden wasn't present at Parkland Hospital and/or the autopsy. His opinion is of little consequence.
He was a pathologist--same as Dr. Wecht--as well as a member of the panel of experts who re-examined the autopsy photos and other medical records for the HSCA. Therefore, he would have been able to determine from the records kept during the autopsy of JFK how much brain tissue was blasted off the brain. You cannot overlook Biden's credentials, nor what he stated he saw.
With Paul O'Conner...I think you should read Reclaiming History, and watch and listen to his testimony during the Mock Trial with Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
I'm not really interested in Bugliosi's opinion. And I did watch O'Connor's testimony during the mock trial. In fact, the video is posted in my previous post. I'm not sure what you think I am supposed to see. If you want to call O'Connor, and others, a liar, you should at least try to answer my question about what his/their motivation would have been to lie.
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in Bugliosi's opinion. The reason I said you should watch Bugliosi questioning O'Conner was so you can hear O'Conner's answers to Bugliosi's responses to O'Conner's claims. And the reason I believe that a lot of the people who have come forward (those discovered by David Lifton especially) saw a chance to receive attention by the media and conspiracy believers. Some of them are outrageous stories. People having an opportunity of seeing their names up in lights will go to any lengths sometimes, to keep --in this case--the "conspiracy" going. It's very unfortunate.
The heaviest of the head matter went forward onto the Connallys, Greer, Kellerman, the interior of the limousine, seats, the inside side panels side rails, windshield, sun visors (both sides) hood, and minute particles on the trunk lid. This is all noted in the notes and sketches by FBI agent Robert Frazier who had the tediosu job along with another (unamed) agent of sifting through every inch of the limousine, inside and out.
Frazier only examined the limo, by itself, at the Secret Service garage in Washington. There is no question that brain matter was scattered over the car and when one views the limo alone it can easily seem that most of the matter went forward, but without examining the Secret Service car and the two motorcycles that would be a conclusion based upon incomplete. information.
[/quote]
According to this Frazier interview on Youtube, Frazier was with two other men:
-
What exactly is this remark by Mrs. Kennedy supposed to prove? Please describe exactly what Mrs. Kennedy meant by that comment and please explain how I am calling her a liar by saying that a large part of the brain matter was blown out of Kennedy's head.
You say that I am "misrepresenting" the evidence? Look what you just did. You didn't include the things I said *AFTER* I said what you quoted above, which answers your question. The brain was coming out of the hole on the top of his head. Not the rear or side of the head as conspiracy believers contend-- the TOP, just as the autopsy photos of the top of the head reveal, as well as what we see flying off the top of JFK's head in the 3 films I mentioned.
I'm not sure how we got here, because I can not recall saying anything about the location of the wound. I also never claimed anything that implied Mrs Kennedy was lying. I'm also not sure what you mean by "the brain was coming out of the hole" when infact the brain matter was blasted out of the wound when the bullet hit.
And regardless of where the massive wound was, it wouldn't have been possible for O'Connor or anybody else to open up the top of the head, to remove the brain, because, the autopsy X rays show pieces of the skull missing and other parts being broken in smaller pieces. It seems to me you are reading far more into Mrs. Kennedy's words than is justified by the evidence.
Secondly, Even Clint Hill said"the brain was exposed" to the Warren Commission.
Again, what do you think this remark proves? Hill said he saw a big hole in the President's head, so naturally the brain would be exposed, but do you really think Hill was able to have a closer look while hanging on the trunk of the limo?
Again, you're misrepresenting the facts, not I. Hill didn't remain on the trunk of the car the entire trip to Parkland. He climbed into the back seat on the way to Parkland. Photographs, and testimony prove this. This is how Hill could have easily had a closer look once he was inside the car. There's even one picture taken on Stemmons where he is standing on the seat looking down into the seat compartment. It's included in the book "The Torch Is Passed". Look at all the pictures and film showing Hill inside the vehicle. So, in answer to your question, it proves that the brain--other than the right hemisphere being badly damaged was intact and still in the head.
How you can get from "Hill could have easily had a closer look once he was inside the car" to the conclusion that it somehow "proves that the brain --other than the right hemisphere being badly damaged was intact and still in the head" is completely beyond me.
Thirdly, According to Dr. Michael Baden--and you can read this in the End Notes of Reclaiming History by Bugliosi--that there wasn't that much of the brain missing. I can't recall exactly at the moment, but he said it was only a few ouces of the actual brain that was missing.
Baden wasn't present at Parkland Hospital and/or the autopsy. His opinion is of little consequence.
He was a pathologist--same as Dr. Wecht--as well as a member of the panel of experts who re-examined the autopsy photos and other medical records for the HSCA. Therefore, he would have been able to determine from the records kept during the autopsy of JFK how much brain tissue was blasted off the brain. You cannot overlook Biden's credentials, nor what he stated he saw.
That's an appeal to authority fallacy. Nobody questions his credentials, but as far as what he saw; he only saw autopsy photos and medical records and based his opinion on that. So, in order to accept his opinion as authoritative you first have to authenticate the photos and records he was presented with. Also, as far as I know, there are no photos of the actual brain that, according to the official narrative, was removed from Kennedy's head. Nor are there any photos of the cranial vault after the brain was removed and there most certainly is no way of telling how much of the brain matter was left behind on Elm Street after having been blown out. This means that the HSCA experts could only guess how much of the brain was actually left when the autopsy began.
What we are discussing here is the discrepancy between official narrative on the one hand and the statements of several people who were present at the autopsy who say something different. To have that discussion, it is pointless to rely on the opinion of somebody who has only seen photos and records which themselves are being questioned. The mere fact that Baden agreed with the official narrative and based his conclusions on that does not prove that the official narrative is correct.
With Paul O'Conner...I think you should read Reclaiming History, and watch and listen to his testimony during the Mock Trial with Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
I'm not really interested in Bugliosi's opinion. And I did watch O'Connor's testimony during the mock trial. In fact, the video is posted in my previous post. I'm not sure what you think I am supposed to see. If you want to call O'Connor, and others, a liar, you should at least try to answer my question about what his/their motivation would have been to lie.
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in Bugliosi's opinion. The reason I said you should watch Bugliosi questioning O'Conner was so you can hear O'Conner's answers to Bugliosi's responses to O'Conner's claims. And the reason I believe that a lot of the people who have come forward (those discovered by David Lifton especially) saw a chance to receive attention by the media and conspiracy believers. Some of them are outrageous stories. People having an opportunity of seeing their names up in lights will go to any lengths sometimes, to keep --in this case--the "conspiracy" going. It's very unfortunate.
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in Bugliosi's opinion.
I am not interested in any book that either supports or questions the official narrative. Each of those books merely represents the opinion of the author(s), and that includes Bugliosi's book as well. The mock trial video shows that Bugliosi accepts the official narrative, including the autopsy, which means that all his opinions are based on that narrative.
The reason I said you should watch Bugliosi questioning O'Conner was so you can hear O'Conner's answers to Bugliosi's responses to O'Conner's claims.
I did watch it. And I clearly come to a different conclusion than you do.
And the reason I believe that a lot of the people who have come forward (those discovered by David Lifton especially) saw a chance to receive attention by the media and conspiracy believers.
That's the usual LN position when anybody says anything that does not compute with the official narrative. O'Connor did not seek any media attention. In the late seventies he testified to the HSCA, let David Lifton interview him and appeared on the mock trial. As far as I know, that's it.
Tom Robinson, one of the embalmers, who confirmed what O'Connor had seen, wanted nothing to do with the media. He gave a statement to the HSCA and remained anonymous for many years. In 2006 a Dutch TV Crime reporter wanted to interview Robinson. It took them months to track him down and several more months before he agreed to the interview.
Those are not the actions of men who wanted to receive media attention.
The heaviest of the head matter went forward onto the Connallys, Greer, Kellerman, the interior of the limousine, seats, the inside side panels side rails, windshield, sun visors (both sides) hood, and minute particles on the trunk lid. This is all noted in the notes and sketches by FBI agent Robert Frazier who had the tediosu job along with another (unamed) agent of sifting through every inch of the limousine, inside and out.
Frazier only examined the limo, by itself, at the Secret Service garage in Washington. There is no question that brain matter was scattered over the car and when one views the limo alone it can easily seem that most of the matter went forward, but without examining the Secret Service car and the two motorcycles that would be a conclusion based upon incomplete. information.
According to this Frazier interview on Youtube, Frazier was with two other men:
Yes, Frazier was with two other FBI agents, but that's not what I meant when I said that he examined the limo, by itself.
What I meant was that he never examined the Secret Service car or the two DPD motorcycles, nor did he examine any evidence left behind at Elm Street. When you look at the limo, by itself, you only see the blood spatter and brain matter that actually remained in the car and as Kennedy was sitting in the back, the conclusion would always be that the blood and brain matter went forward into the car.
Btw in the video Frazier said that "we found some lead particles" but - although I don't think he wanted to mislead, he probably simply wasn't precise enough - that's not completely true. Yes, the limo yeilded some bullet fragments, but it wasn't Frazier and his men who found them. Before Frazier arrived at the Secret Service garage, the limo had already been searched by two men at the instruction of the Agent in charge. They gave the fragments to Frazier when he arrived and told him that they came from the limo. That's why there are no photographs of the fragments in situ.
-
Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 12, 2021, 07:29:42 PM
The memo didn't mean that Katzenbach believed there was a conspiracy that had to be covered up. It meant that many--going by the first-day evidence and no evidence of other suspects appearing over the weekend--genuinely believed by late Sunday that Oswald was the lone assassin.
You can't really be that gullible.
Can...is.
No one could've possibly known for certain within 48 hours of the assassination that no one else was involved.
According to an on the spot radio report...the Dallas police knew for certain that Oswald was the assassin when he was arrested. Did they ever look for anyone else?
-
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
-- J. Edgar Hoover, November 24, 1963
-
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
-- J. Edgar Hoover, November 24, 1963
Warren Gullible response:
Hoover's words don't mean he wants something issued that will convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin, but that he is concerned at the idea of such an unfair thing being done to Oswald. This shows that the investigators were fair-minded to a fault.