JFK Assassination Forum

LP--

LBJ and former CIA director James Woolsey would disagree with you. But what do they know?

Each to his own.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

I don't think LBJ and Woolsey knew any more than anyone else - Woolsey considerably less than most LNers and CTers. Your original piece connects "LBJ, with access to top secret information" to his statement about Castro. It doesn't say "access to top secret information that Castro had orchestrated the assassination" because there wasn't any. LBJ, of course, knew that good old Cui bono? pointed at him, so his Castro statement was somewhat self-serving.

"He read the prepared statement and refused to sign it because it said Oswald had a Coke in his hand and he knew that he hadn't said that."
Cite the documented evidence of this garbage and the other 2/3's about where and when he actually said those things.

Otherwise it is just made up

Baker's statement is CE3076:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/c649blf3s1cnge3/CE%203076.jpg?dl=0

I just noticed that below the line identifying this document as CE3076, there is a handwritten notation saying it is CE1576. Either way it shows Baker made two corrections to the prepared statement.

Note in the next to the last paragraph, Baker made two corrections and initialed both of them. I can't make out what he crossed out in the first correction but the second correction you can see he crossed out "drinking a Coke".

You seem to be ignorant of this fact. Either that or you are aware of it and are being deliberately deceptive. The claim that Oswald was drinking a Coke when Baker confronted him is lie some CT cooked up many years ago based on the erroneous statement that was written FOR BAKER. It was not written by him. Baker refused to sign the statement without the corrections. The reason for cooking up this lie about Oswald having a Coke in his hands is quite simple. That lie gives the impression that Oswald had been in the lunchroom for some time and would give him an alibi that would have precluded him having fired the shots from the sixth floor. Of course, the alibi is a lie because Oswald had just entered the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing which is why Baker was able to see Oswald walking away from the door. Through several recreations of both Oswald's movement from the sixth floor sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom as well as Baker's movement from his motorcycle to the second floor lunchroom. These recreations, while not proving ow long either man took to reach the lunchroom, showed that it was possible for Oswald to get to the lunchroom ahead of Baker. The claim that Oswald was holding a Coke would indicate Oswald had reached the lunchroom well ahead of Baker because he would have taken some time to purchase the Coke. Of course if that had happened, the door would have closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him inside the lunchroom.

I was making this same argument to the CTs 35 years ago when I was a participant on the old Prodigy forum yet here we are in 2026 and there are CTs still clinging to this myth. I guess when you don't have any real evidence to support your belief in a conspiracy, myths are all you have.

You completely misrepresent what I have said repeatedly. I have never said a person is not able to recall events. I have said that witnesses don't remember things perfectly. The do remember some things but they also get some things wrong. The task is to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong by comparing their recollections to the body of evidence as a whole. In this case, we have a witness far more credible than all the other witnesses combined, and that is Zapruder's camera. Any eyewitness account that conflicts with the Z-film should be rejected.

As for my accepting earwitnesses as gospel, you obviously have not read what I have said about the earwitnesses who said the shots came from the GK. They were dead wrong. I know they were dead wrong because it conflicts with the body of evidence, starting with other earwitnesses who said the shots came from the direction of the  TSBD. We know they were right because EYEwtinesses saw a shooter firing from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor, 3 shell were found at the location the eyewitnesses pointed to, and a rifle was found elsewhere on the 6th floor. That rifle was possitively matched to the shells found in the sniper's nest and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting.

As for believing JBC, he said he turned to his right after he heard the shot that did not hit him.  The Z-film shows him start that turn at frame Z164. 6= frames later, we see his jacket suddenly bulge outward and two frames later he reacts by flipping his right arm upward followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, obviously in reaction to having been shot through the torso. I think JBC would know he heard a shot and then several seconds later he was hit by a follow up shot. The Z-film shows us that he did.
Your fallacy is believing eyewitnesses are needed to establish what happened. Many crimes are solved without eyewitnesses. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock left no witnesses when they murdered the Clutter family yet the investigators were able to convict them on the forensic evidence.
I have no idea what your point here is. The SBT is perfectly compatible with a first shot miss and second shot strike.
Yes it is. Now explain why that is wrong.
That is how you resolve cases where the eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts. They can't all be correct. That's why you turn to what other evidence is available to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
It is not an interpretation that JBC turned to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164 and 60 frames later his jacket bulged out and 2 frames after that he suddenly flipped his right arm upward. Do you dispute that is what happened.
Unlike you, I do not rely solely on witnesses to tell me what happened. I evaluate what they have said in the context of all the available evidence. That allows me to determine who got what right and who got things wrong.
Since you foolishly rely solely on witnesses, I'm not surprised you can't understand the concept of corroboration.
That might be the dumbest thing you have written.......so far.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You have decided your opinion has taken on the status of fact. You were given corroborating evidence. Lots and lots of corroborating evidence. Nelly, Jackie, JBC and JBC crying out after the first shot is clearly corroborating evidence. You responded with a strange post about the Clutter Family murder? Something that is not even remotely relevant.

There was not a shot at Z14, Z150, or Z160 or whatever. The corroborating eyewitnesses explained that JFK reacts to the first shot. Just the way JBC describes in the Hospital Room interview.

After the first shot strikes JFK and JBC, JBC turns and looks directly at JFK, and JFK is slumped just like he describes and so many eyewitnesses described as having taken place after the first shot. There is no doubt he saw JFK after he was hit behind the sign.

This whole Early Missed Shot is pure tripe. Not one shred of evidence to it at all. Apparently, you are not going to provide any. Nothing but trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

To whom it may concern: Changing the title of the thread after I had obviously already seen the original title is not going to lure me into reading your ravings.

BLAH BLAH BLAH
Baker stated he saw Oswald drinking a coke. It was written down.

Do you have the statement from Baker that it was a mistake ?
that was not part of the tired garbage you posted.

Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.

JohnM