Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Did Ruby really kill Oswald?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:14:45 PM »
True

This thread illustrates just how nutty CTs can be. Millions of people saw Ruby kill Oswald and that still isn't enough to convince some people of his guilt.

Had there been a hi-def security camera on the 6th floor of the TSBD and it showed Oswald taking aim and firing three shots out the window, some people would find some excuse to dismiss the footage. No amount of proof that Oswald was the assassin could ever be enough for a dedicated CT.
22
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Kennedy and Nixon
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:00:26 PM »
Matthews on the assassination:  "I think we know what happened. No one’s come up with any evidence that really supports an alternative theory. They have questions, of course; they always will. I think part of it is in Shakespeare, the grand protagonist must be felled or challenged by a great protagonist, it can’t be petty, it can’t be a John Hinckley. All of the assassins throughout history have basically been pretty pathetic people. So the reality is so much different than the dramatic notion we all carry with us that it must be an Iago figure. It can’t just be some guy disillusioned from the Soviet Union who carries a torch for Castro.

I’ve written about this in a number of books. Oswald had a very consistent left-wing fanaticism about him. It’s not hard to figure. I always say to people who have some big conspiracy theory: Just tell me this: How come he had that job at the book depository way before they had the parade route that day? I’ve been working around government a long time, so I don’t have this spooky notion of the government or the CIA. I don’t think some dark forces are at work."

People think great events need a great cause or force behind it. It couldn't be this pathetic Oswald changing history so dramatically. But history can turn on small things, it doesn't have to be major forces. The problem with the conspiracy crowd is they can't accept this, that history changed so much because some nobody with a $20 rifle was behind it.

Link/source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/xxxx-st-chris-matthews-jfk-50-years-assassination-20131122-story.html

I first became acquainted with Matthews when he was a semi regular on the PBS Friday night program, the McLaughlin Report. This was around the time the JFK movie came out and the topic of the assassination came up. Most of the panelists when asked sided with the WC. Matthews expressed the opinion it was the Cubans. He didn't say whether it was anti-Castro or pro-Castro Cubans and John McLaughlin didn't ask. It was just a few years later that I saw he had come over to the LN side and the reason he gave was the one you quoted. That was the same question that had brought me back to the LN side a few years earlier after spending a few years in the CT wilderness. Whether one postulates Oswald was part of the plot or an unwitting patsy, how would the conspirators have known to place him in the TSBD 6 weeks prior to the assassination. The JFKA was a crime of opportunity. Had the motorcade not been routed past the TSBD, I doubt Oswald would have even thought about taking out JFK but when fate handed him a golden opportunity to become somebody important, he couldn't pass it up. It was not the first time a significant historical event turned on chance circumstances and won't be the last. Life can be that random.
23
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Kennedy and Nixon
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 06:46:15 PM »
Matthews on the assassination:  "I think we know what happened. No one’s come up with any evidence that really supports an alternative theory. They have questions, of course; they always will. I think part of it is in Shakespeare, the grand protagonist must be felled or challenged by a great protagonist, it can’t be petty, it can’t be a John Hinckley. All of the assassins throughout history have basically been pretty pathetic people. So the reality is so much different than the dramatic notion we all carry with us that it must be an Iago figure. It can’t just be some guy disillusioned from the Soviet Union who carries a torch for Castro.

I’ve written about this in a number of books. Oswald had a very consistent left-wing fanaticism about him. It’s not hard to figure. I always say to people who have some big conspiracy theory: Just tell me this: How come he had that job at the book depository way before they had the parade route that day? I’ve been working around government a long time, so I don’t have this spooky notion of the government or the CIA. I don’t think some dark forces are at work."

People think great events need a great cause or force behind it. It couldn't be this pathetic Oswald changing history so dramatically. But history can turn on small things, it doesn't have to be major forces. The problem with the conspiracy crowd is they can't accept this, that history changed so much because some nobody with a $20 rifle was behind it.

Link/source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/xxxx-st-chris-matthews-jfk-50-years-assassination-20131122-story.html
24
One JFKA CT narrative is that President JFK had decided to withdraw from South Vietnam, and so the military-industrial complex, along with the CIA, had JFK waxed, maybe through the cat's paw of angry anti-Castro exiles who felt betrayed after the Bay of Pigs.

The narrative has never really been compelling, as JFK had barely indicated tentative plans to withdraw from SV, and even if there were less boosts on the ground, US aid would still pour into in SV, in the form of naval and airpower, intel, diplomatic support, war materiel and money.

Another problem I see with the Vietnam-withdrawal-as-murder-motive narrative is that NSAM 263 was not released until October 11, 1963, just five weeks before the assassination. However, the plot was clearly already in motion by the end of September.

A more plausible scenario is that the plotters were partly motivated by JFK's declining support for Diem, by the increased attacks on Diem coming from JFK's advisers starting in April 1963, and by JFK's acceptance of Averell Harriman's disastrous coalition-government deal for Laos in mid-1962.

If the plotters read NSAM 263's supporting documents, they knew that the withdrawal was expressly conditioned on progress in the war effort, that the withdrawal was gradual and would be paused if conditions on the ground worsened, and that the withdrawal called for an end-state of leaving 1,500 support troops in South Vietnam and of continuing military and economic aid to South Vietnam.

These facts are stated in black and white in the supporting documents, yet many leftist conspiracy theorists ignore them and insist on claiming that JFK intended to unilaterally and completely pull out of South Vietnam after the 1964 election and that he did not care if South Vietnam fell under communist rule as a result.

25
It always amuses me when you offer your assumptions in lieu of any actual evidence.
"Quite possible"? Now there's a compelling argument.
Now you toss in a "may have".
Since neither Siebert nor O'Neill never testified what they meant by "missile", this is pure conjecture.
Yet another assumption. Keep up the good work. <chuckle>
Neither Stover nor Osborne ever testified to the WC, HSCA, nor ARRB. Great source. .

And now you toss another "may have" into your word salad.
And another "may have". Keep going.
You are really scraping bottom when you cite Lifton.
Take it easy on the "may haves". Too much of a good thing.
Who testified to that?
Young never testified to any of this. Reportedly, he said this in an interview 38 years after the assassination. In the "What Price a Rose" article Young wrote for himself in 2013, he made no mention of any of this.
That is, of course, what should have been done with those fragments which begs the question, why would the Secret Service have handled a whole bullet any differently? Why would they have not sent that to the FBI as well? Why would they send the bullet to the medical examiners when the medical examiners are supposed to turn any bullets they find over to the investigators? It makes no sense.
While there is some disagreement as to precisely where on the back of JFK's head the bullet entered, there is no disagreement among the medical examiners that the entry was in the back of the head which fits perfectly with the conclusion that the headshot was fired from behind by Oswald.

As for your conclusion that the brain photos are fraudulent, that is the musing of an incompetent amateur who has had no training or experience in the field of forensic pathology. Only a fool would accept that conclusion over that of the professionals with years of training and experience.

muttering small talk at the wall.
 ::) nobody cares
26
In his defense there are a lot of conspiracy people here who believe things that are simply not possible; so, he's not alone. Was the Oliver Stone movie or the Garrison thesis any more unbelievable, any more illogical? Millions of people saw Stone's movie - it was widely praised; thousands of people hear Garrison's claims - he is still heralded for his work by some.

We have people who come here day-after-day for years saying "There's no evidence Oswald shot Tippit" or "There's no evidence Oswald owned the rifle." That's almost as illogical as the claim that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald.
True
27


I would suspect that Dougherty is not telling the full story to Toff and that Dougherty saw Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room on his way upstairs or somehow knew - like perhaps seeing and talking to Oswald before Oswald went back up to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...Something Truly, the Commission, and FBI had to do serious damage control over...
28
In his interview with Gil Toff in 1971 Jack Dougherty told Toff that he was alone in the Domino Room eating lunch while Oswald was up in the 2nd Floor Lunch room eating his lunch...

Truly helped destroy Dougherty's credibility by calling him retarded and defaming him as his supervisor and undermining his statements...

It seems obvious to me that the reason Truly did that is because Dougherty refused to go along with the framing of Oswald and told the truth that Oswald was up in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room in his interviews...And that was difficult to do damage control for by the conspirators and was resolved by destroying Dougherty's credibility...

Domino Room is out Zeon...And, if you recall, Lovelady said he looked in there before going out on the front steps with Shelley and Stanton...


                                                                       "Bette Davis Eyes" ?

   The Domino Room is on the TSBD 1st Floor. The Lunchroom is on the TSBD 2nd Floor. How would anyone inside the Domino Room know if someone was inside the Lunchroom?

                                                                     "
29
The Bell Film shows Wiegman running across the stairs/directly toward Zapruder.

The Bell film shows Weigman (circled in red) lying on the steps. He has just finished filming the Hesters (Mrs Hester circled in yellow) and is in the process of getting up.
Weigman doesn't move from this spot. He doesn't approach Zapruder at all. Note - in the bottom left of this image we can see Hargis stood by a lamp post.



There is then a cut in the film and Weigman is suddenly down by the Newmans. Note - in this image we can see Hargis is now running across Elm Street towards his car.



In the Couch film we see the moment Weigman runs down the knoll from his spot on the steps filming the Hesters to his spot near the Newmans where he starts to film them. We should be able to see Zapruder and Sitzman in the Couch footage but the Stemmons sign is in the way.



In the image above Weigman is about half way along his run. Hargis is still at the lamp post and is about to start his run across Elm Street.


"The Wiegman Film was claimed to have been shot "continuously" for 30+ years following the assassination."

From my own viewing it seems that the opening shot of the Weigman film is a single shot up until the point he has finished filming the Hesters. The film then clearly cuts to the Newmans. There can be zero doubt there is a cut at this point so I'm not sure how there could be a claim that it was continuous.


                                                                     - YOU TUBE -

                    "Raw Footage #1: The F.M. Bell film out-of-camera original"      by - The JFK Theorist  (1:19)

    The Bell Film still frame you have posted above is CROPPED.  Zapruder is visible on the (L), on an Uncropped Bell Film. Sitzman is also visible between the sprocket holes.
     I recommend you use the Bell Film I have listed above to help with your time stamping. "The JFK Theorist" posts extremely good copies of JFK assassination films on You Tube. He sometimes posts on this forum as "Alex Harris".
     Altgens gave WC Testimony that he initially followed law enforcement UP the knoll. When we see Altgens above, he has come back down the knoll and is now walking laterally L-R. Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
     
30
That is a very good point. I had forgotten about that map.

Yes, initially federal investigators acknowledged the bullet strike that Foster had observed and that Dallas police sources had initially confirmed, and they tried to determine when it was fired.

How could they confirm that was a bullet strike when no bullet was found at that location?
Quote

Of course, the main problem was that they were already chained down by the three-shot scenario. They soon realized that none of their supposed three shots, nor a fragment from those shots, could have hit the grass near the manhole cover. And that's why the WC ended up lamely dismissing the bullet strike.

The WC's lone-gunman theory would have been much more credible and defensible if the Commission had posited that the supposed single shooter fired four shots, one shot before the Z133 break in the Zapruder film, one shot while the limo was passing beneath the oak tree at (the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage), one shot at around Z234-236 (which would have aligned with Connally's choice of impact frame), and one shot at Z312. This would have given the alleged lone assassin a plausible amount of time between shots (4 shots in 379 frames or 20.7 seconds), and would have given the WC one more missed shot. Ah, but the three shell casings conveniently and suspiciously left behind in the sixth-floor sniper's nest prevented the positing of such a scenario.

As bad as you are at making your own arguments, the LNs would be crazy to let you make our arguments for us.
Quote

Yes, and federal investigators and WC staffers soon realized this, which is one of the reasons the bullet strike had to be denied, even though it was well documented.

Just how was that documented? By a photo of a hole in the turf with no bullet in the hole? Compelling stuff
Quote

The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.

I've never claimed the witnesses were mistaken. They probably did see a hole in the turf. None of them saw a bullet in the hole in the turf.
Quote

Yes, the theories that WC apologists have offered to explain the bullet strike in the grass require wildly implausible scenarios. Their attempts to explain the bullet strike are even worse and zanier than their attempts to explain the Tague wounding -- and that's saying a lot.

It has never been established that there was a bullet strike in the grass at that location. Only assumptions based on the flimsiest of evidence.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10