Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / interesting take on the effect of the JFKA on American culture
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 12:39:51 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/cultural-impact-of-the-kennedy-assassination-the-shot-that-changed-america/vi-AA1Wi94p?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=6a2000347a3c43e29c3e2ad8a9e5942e&ei=19

A significant part of the narrative had to do with Beatlemania but the moderator seems to dismiss that notion given that Beatlemania was already taking hold in America. Two months later, the Beatles made their famous American debut on the Ed Sullivan Show.

There was another cultural icon that came to prominence in the wake of the JFKA that was not discussed t, that being Muhammed Ali, known then as Cassius Clay. At the time the Beatles were making their first American tour, Cassius Clay was training for his upcoming title fight with then champion Sonny Liston, a fight few gave Clay a chance to win. One of the concert stops for the Beatles was Miami where the title fight was being held and as a publicity stunt, they showed up at Clay's training camp for some staged photos. Clay had been in a cocoon while training. After the Beatles left, he turned to one of his handlers and asked, "Who were those faggots".

https://beatlesdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Beatles-with-Cassius-Clay8.jpg

One point that was made was the JFKA gave birth to the 24 hour news cycle. Live onsite coverage was rare up until then but we saw tons of that during the 72 hours following the assassination, including the murder of Oswald. One thing I learned a while back was the reason the networks didn't immediately go to live coverage after first announcing that assassination was because it took about 15 minutes for the vacuum tube TV cameras to warm up to the point they would function. That's why initially the networks just flashed their BULLETIN screen while the anchor did the voice over. I think CBS cut back to the soap opera twice after first announcing the assassination before Walter Cronkite came on the air in shirtsleeves which he later admitted was considered bad form. He hadn't even thought about putting on his jacket.
52
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:57:41 AM »
Quote from: Charles Collins on Yesterday at 11:51:42 AM

I have often thought that if JBC had only shouted “get down” after the first shot, instead of “oh no, their going to kill us all” after the second shot, that JFK might have survived.

Had JFK reacted the way Trump did and immediately got down, he probably wouldn't have taken the fatal shot. Some have argued that his back brace helped to keep him upright in his seat. I have no opinion on that. JFK had almost five seconds to get down before the head shot but my viewing of the Z-film tells me he was in a WTF mindset, unaware of what was about to come next.
53
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What evidence of a conspiracy would we expect to find?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:52:17 AM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 03:08:25 AM
LP--

Interesting question.

I think both SBT'ers-LNT'ers and CT'ers got off the track by either formulating that there was a large conspiracy, or then refuting the obvious flaws in large CT's.

A small, informal or ad hoc conspiracy, of low level Alpha 66'ers or G-2'ers, which left no written evidence behind, and which was only tangentially connected to any institution is my preferred CT narrative.

Detecting such a conspiracy would be difficult, say if LHO was dead ad the other two perps kept quiet. Then what? Who knows anything?

The WC had an inclination from the start to go LNT; we know that from LBJ's instructions to Russell and Warren. {/quote]

Do tell us what those instructions were. Documentation would be nice.
Quote

(I can't get past Gov. JBC holding his Stetson at Z-272, or his body being thrust forward at ~Z-295.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

The evidence (there is that hallowed word!) seen in the Z-film is indisputable; Connally is pushed forward ~Z-295.

I doubt JBC could hold onto to his Stetson hat after being shot through the wrist by a large "tumbling" slug.

Yet, JFK is indisputably shot at Z-313.

The GK smoke-and-bag show indicates another perp as well.)

It must have been The Invisible Man since no one saw him. He must have been a lousy shot as well since he didn't hit anything.
Quote

The Mafia? Possibly, but there seems to be oodles of connections between LHO and intel agencies, and very little linking him to the Mob. 

Caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.

And still no evidence that anybody in the intelligence agencies or organized crime conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.
54
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by Charles Collins on Yesterday at 11:51:42 AM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:45:01 AM
Believe it or not, there was a guy on the McAdams forum who argued that. Oswald was trying to alert the protection detail that an assassination was about to take place. Another guy argued it was an alignment shot. He said no shooter would attempt a shot without first aligning his scope. The first shot was so he could make any necessary adjustments to the scope.


I have often thought that if JBC had only shouted “get down” after the first shot, instead of “oh no, their going to kill us all” after the second shot, that JFK might have survived.
55
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:45:01 AM »
Quote from: Charles Collins on Yesterday at 11:35:01 AM

It was the proverbial “warning shot”….    ;)    ;D

Believe it or not, there was a guy on the McAdams forum who argued that. Oswald was trying to alert the protection detail that an assassination was about to take place. Another guy argued it was an alignment shot. He said no shooter would attempt a shot without first aligning his scope. The first shot was so he could make any necessary adjustments to the scope.
56
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:39:59 AM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 04:06:33 AM
I just noticed this on the other thread in which I referenced mob lawyer Ragano's claims. It illustrates your confusion, or possibly your feigned confusion. I got news for ya: As Martin pointed out, we are w-a-y past the point of trying to apply the Criminal Rules of Evidence to the JFKA.

I guess we're in the let's-just-throw=crap=against-the wall-and-see-what-sticks phase. The Cts have been stuck in that phase for decades. While there are no rules of evidence governing what can be introduced, if you want to make a compelling argument, you need offer compelling evidence for your arguments. So far you have struck out in that department. All you can give us is speculaiton.
Quote

There ain't ever gonna be a trial. There never was a trial. The WC was not a trial.

No it wasn't. It was a fact finding body that did it's job extremely well. But that doesn't stop the CTs from using the inadmissable excuse when it suits them, arguing that damning evidence against Oswald would have been inadmissable at trial. It seems like they are trying get Oswald off on a technicality.
Quote

The WC operated according to some wacky Pretend Rules of Evidence where they sorta-kinda went through the motions, but there was no one to object to anything.

Thank you for illustrating the point I just made. You want to object to the evidence against Oswald on imaginary grounds yet you are more than willing to introduce things that wouldn't remotely be considered by any court in the land. As I pointed out, the WC was not conducting a trial. It was a fact finding body, not an adversarial proceeding. If you know a lawyer, maybe he can explain the difference to you.
Quote

It was more like an administrative hearing where the Rules of Evidence are relaxed to the point of nonexistence (kind of like Buddy's Used Car Sales, I would guess, where the odometer reading on that 1974 Maverick was only marginally evidential). Even in an administrative hearing, however, there are two opposing sides to keep things honest.

So here's where you get to throw out accusations without any evidence to support it. Give us one example where the WC tampered with or falsified evidence. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
Quote

Suddenly your definition of evidence would exclude "unsworn hearsay statements" (whatever that is supposed to mean)

If you have a lawyer friend, ask him to explain those terms to you.
Quote


as though we were in some JFKA trial in 2026. You may or may not know from your rapt attention to Episode #47 of Perry Mason, but Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains 24 exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay, while Rule 807 contains an exception so wide as to almost swallow the prohibition. In any event, Ragano was in fact the lawyer for Hoffa, Trafficante and Marcello. He told a pretty consistent story, including under oath. Much as you might disagree because you don't know what you're talking about, what he said is evidence out here in the real world. We are entitled to attach such credibility and weight to Ragano's story as we wish and to draw such inferences as seem reasonable to us, and you are free to disagree. It's as simple as that.

So tell us specifically what he said that is evidence any of these organized crime figures conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.
57
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by Charles Collins on Yesterday at 11:35:01 AM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:21:19 AM
While I can't logically dismiss Charles' belief that the first shot was an accidental discharge, I still think it more probable that he missed right of his intended target due to an awkward shooting position, an unsteady rifle, and possibly a rushed shot with the tree looming ahead. Oswald is the only one who can answer that question definitively and he's not talking.


It was the proverbial “warning shot”….    ;)    ;D
58
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:21:19 AM »
While I can't logically dismiss Charles' belief that the first shot was an accidental discharge, I still think it more probable that he missed right of his intended target due to an awkward shooting position, an unsteady rifle, and possibly a rushed shot with the tree looming ahead. Oswald is the only one who can answer that question definitively and he's not talking.
59
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gordon Arnold - The Man Who Claimed He Was Attacked By Badgeman
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:15:33 AM »
Quote from: Duncan MacRae on Yesterday at 07:52:01 AM
??? Gordon Arnold - The Man Who Claimed He Was Attacked By Badgemann  ???


It's been a long time since I've seen anyone bring up the Badgeman claim. I didn't realize Gary Mack was the originator of the claim. He turned the Moorman photo into a Rorschach test. He blew up a 1/4" square and then added color for effect. Apparently Badgeman and Gordon Arnold were both about 9 feet tall.
60
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by Charles Collins on Yesterday at 11:12:42 AM »
I made a significant error and now I need to own up to it and correct things. The angle downwards from horizontal is about 55-degrees. I inadvertently used 35-degrees (that is actually the angle upwards from vertical, and the top angle of the triangle formed by the height and horizontal distance). When I set my tripod angle I made a mistake and used the wrong angle. So, here is what it looks like from the proper angle of 55-degrees.








As can be seen, when using the proper angle, the 2” target is closer to being correct than the 3” target is. I measured the apparent minimum distance to miss the entire limo (first image yellow line at bottom of the outside side of the limo) at 1-1/8”. This scales to be 27”. So I was wrong and John Corbett was closer to being correct than I was. Sorry everyone!   :-X
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10