Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Why does Thomas Graves start all of these inane, non sequitur threads that invariably lead to nowhere, answers no questions, always touch on the "unknowable" and pretty much just fill up forum space with these profound inanities uttered by one, Thomas Graves?

The same goes for that "Ben Cole" character too.

Did you ever think that the things you two think of, and then actually go so far as to actually make a thread about, are mere "inquiries" by yourselves and yourselves alone, made up in your own heads, to attempt to appear erudite in this case when all you really end up doing is making fools of yourselves.

Can either of you two post a topic that might actually lead somewhere instead of these brain farts that you receive from God only knows where?

You know, that thing they call "research"

Believe it or not, there are many other researchers out there, good ones too, that never and I mean NEVER, dream up the kind of inane questions and topics that you two do.

There is a reason for that.

Can you two brainstorm and come up with the correct answer as to what that reason may be?

 :'(

32
New York Times article from 1976, when Howard K. Smith reported what LBJ had said in 1968. My guess is that LBJ actually knew no more than yours truly, possibly considerably less.

Lyndon B. Johnson privately linked Premier Fidel Castro of Cuba to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Howard K. Smith, the ABC News commentator, said last night, quoting from what he called a “confidential” convexsation with President Johnson in his tenure in the White House.

“Mr. Johnson often dealt in blarney; and what he told me may have been that,” Mr. Smith said, in reporting the conversation.

“I'll tell you something [about Kennedy's murder) that will rock you,” Mr. Smith quoted the late President as saying. “Then he said, Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first,” Mr. Smith continued.

“I was rocked all right, begged for details,” Mr. Smith added. “He refused, saying it will all come out one day."

Mr. Smith, who based his report on “thorough notes,” written an hour after the conversation, said he was making the conversation public because the issue of the assassination had been “revived, responsibly, by Senators.”

As “evidence that belief in Cuban assassination plots was alive in Washington,” during Mr. Johnson's first months in office, Mr. Smith said that Mr. Johnson's airplane had once been diverted from Miami to an obscure rural airport because of a rumor that “a Cuban kamikaze pilot had been ordered to ram his plane.”


Those dang Cuban kamikaze pilots, they're the worst.
33
Baker testified on March 25, 1964. The amended affidavit (probably prepared by FBI agent Richard Burnett) that's in question was signed on September 23, 1964. So there was nothing to clarify at the time of his testimony.

My understanding was that the WC was closing up shop and rushing through affidavits to meet the schedule.

Jean Davison made this point: "Baker's affidavit of Sept 23, 1964 and a similar one from Truly were dated only one day before the Warren Report was officially released, and both their statements were, unlike all the other FBI documents I'm aware of, *handwritten*. IOW, they were prepared in a big hurry. Their statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph on the "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker confronted Oswald. (Neither Baker or Truly had been specifically asked this in their testimony. Their 9/64 affidavits supplied the explicit answer: no one else was in the lunchroom.) I surmise that someone at the WC realized at the last minute that they needed a "cite" for this statement.""

David Von Pein has more details on it here: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

Thanks again, Steve. I now remember reading - possibly in one of the books by one of the WC attorneys - about the circumstances under which those affidavits were prepared. Still, only in the JFKA, where nothing goes smoothly, would the "holding a coke" statement "just happen" to find its way into a draft affidavit and create havoc.

Here is an old thread (2010) from the McAdams forum on Google in which Jean Davison participates and speculates the handwritten affidavits were prepared by an FBI agent who prepared them in advance and simply included the "established myth" about the coke. DVP suggests basically the same thing. Pretty weak, it seems to me, and in any event how this damning statement appeared in the draft affidavit should have been firmly nailed down.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/_TSEJPDFU4c/m/LWDpqCFXF94J

It looks like DVP's site may preserve the same thread, but I find it impossible to wade through these endless "and then he said" discussions. I just happened to stumble immediately on Jean's contribution.

Dulles (of all people) somehow knew to ask Truly at the WC specifically whether Oswald was holding "a coke." When Truly said no, Dulles asked whether Oswald was holding any drink. I suppose Dulles could have been informed enough about Oswald's alibi to know he had claimed to have bought a coke.

34
Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.
That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.

No, no one needs your opinion on JBC’s state of mind. Nellie and Jackie state what occurred, as did all the other eyewitnesses. What did not take place was an early missed shot. That is why you are unable to prove it. 

Rosemary Willis, seriously, a child and none of the adults surrounding her knew what was happening. Just her. That is your answer?
35
The real danger is if the Democrats ever gain control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives which they probably will. When that happens, they will end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, making it very difficult for the GOP to take back the Senate. They will then be able to ram through their radical agenda. It almost happened in 2020 but we were lucky to have a couple sane Democrats in Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema to prevent that from happening. The only one we have now is John Fetterman and I don't think he will be enough to stop all this if the Democrats get 51 senators.

I agree 100% but all Trump can do is continue to exercise good policy judgements and hope there are still enough sane people that haven't been brainwashed by media propaganda to avoid that result.  I have no doubt whatsoever that TDS is a real condition that has resulted from either an intentional or unintentional PSYOP type effort.   The decade long obsession with Trump bashing in the media, with social media algorithms, and in Hollywood culture has impacted the minds of such people.  They are not only entirely obsessed with Trump but have a deep and very personal hatred toward him.  I didn't agree with Biden or Obama but never felt that kind of rage over politics.  It is frightening. 
36
ME: What percentage of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 now disapprove of his job performance?

GROK: Approximately 20-25% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 now give him a negative (disapprove) job approval rating.

pewresearch.org

A Trump hating poll.  Remember the pollsters that suggested Hillary would win in 2016 or the 2024 poll indicating that Trump was down double digits in Iowa?  Who cares? If his approval rating drops to zero, he is still the president and Kamala is not - and never will be.  That's what matters.  Cite all the polls that you want.  Trump will go down in history as a two-term president.   A transformational figure.
37
So how is is not reacting to being shot in the torso at z230?

It is simply imprecise. JBC described how he remembered reacting to being shot and the frame he believed he was struck at. What he didn't recall was his immediate initial reflexive and involuntary response when he flipped his injured right arm in reaction to having his wrist shattered. He wasn't even aware of his wrist injury until he came out of surgery.

JBC believed he was facing straight ahead when he was hit by the second shot and looking at the Z-film frames, he saw he reached that forward facing position at Z230, The Z-film actually shows he was hit about a half second earlier as evidenced by the jacket bulge at Z224 and the arm flip which began att Z226.
38
As stated, I find Oswald the man the most interesting aspect of the JFKA. I’ve read everything there is about him, and my sister-in-law and her husband worked in the Minsk factory at the same time. I think I “know” him about as well as he can be known.

I’m a provisional Lone Nutter but troubled by several aspects of the narrative, including the one I’ll describe here. The standard LN response is, “The evidence says he did it. It doesn’t matter who he was, why he did it, or what was going on inside his head.” Well ...

When he took a shot at Walker (we’ll assume he did), he left behind a detailed note, and Marina said he arrived home in a state of considerable agitation. Compare the JFKA.

1. I’m puzzled by his behavior at the Paine home the evening before the JFKA. He begs Marina to join him in Dallas, makes promises, and gives absolutely no clue he is contemplating the JFKA. He leaves no note.

2. He has long been convinced he is destined for a place in history and has written fairly extensively about his views, but he leaves no explanation or manifesto concerning the JFKA. There is nothing like this in his room on Beckley.

3. He shoots JFK, stashes the rifle, scurries down the stairs, hears Baker and Truly coming up – but then is utterly calm and collected when Baker confronts him and sticks a gun in his stomach.

4. He exits the TSBD, boards a bus, leaves the bus and hails a taxi – but then offers the taxi to an older woman who approaches.

5. He is grilled by Fritz, who is a legend for wheedling confessions out of suspects – but he is so cocky and unflappable that Fritz not only fails to break him but emerges speculating that he has been trained to avoid interrogation.

6. In custody, he tells his brother Robert, “Don’t believe the so-called evidence.”

7. In custody for more than 36 hours, and despite the seemingly compelling evidence against him, he never cracks or gives anything other than flat denials of his involvement in the JFKA and Tippit shooting.

I at least find this all bizarre enough to contemplate that “something more” than the LN narrative may have been going on. It seems to me inadequate to say, "The evidence says he did it and nothing else matters." Yes, Oswald was a massive liar even when lying served no purpose, but all of the above is extremely odd and gives me pause about Oswald as a Lone Nut who just snapped. The problem is, I have no real theory as to what the “something more” might be that would explain his behavior. "He was a wholly innocent patsy" would do it, of course, but that just doesn't fit the evidence unless one postulates a conspiracy so elaborate as to be comical.

Fascinating.

The evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond all doubt.  Some things can only be known to Oswald about why he committed this act.  Assassinating the president is not a rational act.  There are often not rational explanations for the whys.  Oswald was smart enough to know that committing this act would result in his arrest or death.  That was baked into the decision to do it.  The perpetrators themselves likely do not know the real motivations.  They can espouse a lot of grievances but none of that explains mass shootings or assassinations.  Some people are just wired differently.  None of that, however, casts a single iota of doubt about the fact that Oswald did it.  The evidence tells its story. 

Oswald also had no idea his life was going to end within 48 hrs of his arrest.  His confession was all that he had to bargain for his life.  If he had gone to trial, it's likely he would have followed the James Earl Ray path to confess and get a life sentence.  Then spend the rest of his life hinting that he was involved in some larger conspiracy to stay in the limelight and play conspiracy theorists.  But he wasn't going to talk that weekend.
39
J Corbett---” Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.”

No, it does not.

You mean the first statement from JBC. The Hospital statement.

”we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left—I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat—the President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly.”   

He actually turned to his right not his left. Does that make him a “confused witness”, doesn’t matter he was staring right at a slumping JFK. Just as said and just as described by the eyewitnesses. Then there is corroboration of witnesses of Nellie, Jackie, and JBC with what is seen on the Zapruder Film over JBC yelling OH No No No.   

Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.
Quote

Really a child running down a sidewalk and you interpreting her movements is your proof? Doesn’t take much to convince you. You just need to ignore the real evidence and pretend.

That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.
40
Maybe because we see him reacting to being shot, not at Z230 but at Z226.
So how is is not reacting to being shot in the torso at z230?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10