Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assasination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I hadn't checked this out since it moved to its own thread.

    Nothing really new.

    I see nothing to refute my points;

    1) Why put the shooter at such a bad angle if its is a multi-shooter conspiracy? You have to have every shooter at the same level, or the entry wound angles are going to be all wrong.

    2) Why is Oswald, the heart & soul of a conspiracy cover-up, left unattended during the shooting?

    3) Why bother with multiple shooters in the first place? Then & now anything's avalible in Dallas. Put a BAR or Thompson in play, and there are no uncertainties and no need for other shooters.

    4) Why use someone with such a weird background? Why not use some local nut as the fall guy, and build a better connection. There are hundreds of radical crazies in a town the size of Dallas. Probably well over a thousand.

    To fly as a conspiracy, you have to explain why such a half-a**ed plan was approved for such a desperate undertaking, and why a 100% secure cover-up was managed by a group who bungled the assassination so thoroughly. They managed to track and conceal/prevent any evidence or admission on record for decades, but couldn't keep eyes on Oswald for a hour.

    Life is not neat & tidy. The JFK assassination looks like a real murder: untidy, lots of loose ends, and a sketchy outline of why.

    Its when things line out nice & neat and everything fits that you have to start asking yourself WTF is going on.
    If it was nice and neat and everything fits then you wouldn't know about it. My self and others have pointed to the evidence in regards to who LHO and Ruby hung out with and what they had been doing up to ths point. I hear your points about rifles etc but that doesnt mean this information doesn't exist. If you've already seen this stuff, then fair enough, you've analysed and dont see it. But with repsect Im suspecting you haven't . I only say that because I didnt give it much thought beyond what we mostly now but I know believe there was a lot more to it. LHO had multiple connections to multiple agencies of the US government. This we know for sure. A man who was being "washed " as a pro Castro marxist whilst working out of the same building as militant anti Castro people connected to the CIA, a man who then amazingly turns up working in a building overlooking a motorcade route in which the POTUS is murdered and then who is murdered by a man with connections to mob gun running to Cuba and knew Santos Trafficante. If you dont smell something fishy then fine that's OK but I think something does stink....

    The thing is the European press did go at this Cuban anti Castro angle in the months after the assassination while the US press didn't dare touch it and those that did only got published in non mainstream sources. I find that interesting...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      If it was nice and neat and everything fits then you wouldn't know about it. My self and others have pointed to the evidence in regards to who LHO and Ruby hung out with and what they had been doing up to ths point. I hear your points about rifles etc but that doesnt mean this information doesn't exist. If you've already seen this stuff, then fair enough, you've analysed and dont see it. But with repsect Im suspecting you haven't . I only say that because I didnt give it much thought beyond what we mostly now but I know believe there was a lot more to it. LHO had multiple connections to multiple agencies of the US government. This we know for sure. A man who was being "washed " as a pro Castro marxist whilst working out of the same building as militant anti Castro people connected to the CIA, a man who then amazingly turns up working in a building overlooking a motorcade route in which the POTUS is murdered and then who is murdered by a man with connections to mob gun running to Cuba and knew Santos Trafficante. If you dont smell something fishy then fine that's OK but I think something does stink....

      The thing is the European press did go at this Cuban anti Castro angle in the months after the assassination while the US press didn't dare touch it and those that did only got published in non mainstream sources. I find that interesting...
      You haven't shown 'evidence'; yeah, Ruby was a criminal, but so were hundreds of others in Dallas at that period.

      The thing is that you hold up ordinary things as if they are special, and unconnected things as if they are proof.

      Intelligence agencies have files on people. That is normal. The fact that Oswald had a security clearance means there will be files on him in several agecies, along with every other serviceman who ever had clearance. That is a fact, not evidence.

      A nutjob chooses to kill the Prez. He picks a spot where he can do it. Or, he finds out he has access to a spot where he can do it.

      He does it.

      Three days later he is killed by another nutjob who is both a cop groupie, informant, and petty criminal.

      Nothing there really shocking. Its not unlikely.

      But to say that this was a black op planned and carried out by professionals...then I smell something. The weapon issues. Oswald at large. A man committing murder essentially on national TV.

      None of this comes across as planned or controlled. Its either real, or it is the single most inept black op planned.

      Yet the cover-up is perfect. Ruby dies without saying a word. No one else goes on record.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        I hadn't checked this out since it moved to its own thread.

        Nothing really new.

        I see nothing to refute my points;

        1) Why put the shooter at such a bad angle if its is a multi-shooter conspiracy? You have to have every shooter at the same level, or the entry wound angles are going to be all wrong.

        2) Why is Oswald, the heart & soul of a conspiracy cover-up, left unattended during the shooting?

        3) Why bother with multiple shooters in the first place? Then & now anything's avalible in Dallas. Put a BAR or Thompson in play, and there are no uncertainties and no need for other shooters.

        4) Why use someone with such a weird background? Why not use some local nut as the fall guy, and build a better connection. There are hundreds of radical crazies in a town the size of Dallas. Probably well over a thousand.

        To fly as a conspiracy, you have to explain why such a half-a**ed plan was approved for such a desperate undertaking, and why a 100% secure cover-up was managed by a group who bungled the assassination so thoroughly. They managed to track and conceal/prevent any evidence or admission on record for decades, but couldn't keep eyes on Oswald for a hour.

        Life is not neat & tidy. The JFK assassination looks like a real murder: untidy, lots of loose ends, and a sketchy outline of why.

        Its when things line out nice & neat and everything fits that you have to start asking yourself WTF is going on.
        So if your argument is that Oswald was the lone shooter then please explain Frames 312-320 of the Zapruder film...

        Explain how a shooter above and behind the target managed to get a frontal piercing headshot...
        BoRG
        "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          You haven't shown 'evidence'; yeah, Ruby was a criminal, but so were hundreds of others in Dallas at that period.

          The thing is that you hold up ordinary things as if they are special, and unconnected things as if they are proof.

          Intelligence agencies have files on people. That is normal. The fact that Oswald had a security clearance means there will be files on him in several agecies, along with every other serviceman who ever had clearance. That is a fact, not evidence.

          A nutjob chooses to kill the Prez. He picks a spot where he can do it. Or, he finds out he has access to a spot where he can do it.

          He does it.

          Three days later he is killed by another nutjob who is both a cop groupie, informant, and petty criminal.

          Nothing there really shocking. Its not unlikely.

          But to say that this was a black op planned and carried out by professionals...then I smell something. The weapon issues. Oswald at large. A man committing murder essentially on national TV.

          None of this comes across as planned or controlled. Its either real, or it is the single most inept black op planned.

          Yet the cover-up is perfect. Ruby dies without saying a word. No one else goes on record.
          To start with. I dont maintain the cover up and there most certainly was one , was done by those (if conspiracy was the case) that did the hit. They are seperate. That must be borne in mind. If not then one gets into the government killed JFK and I think thats nonsense....

          When I read what you say its from a standpoint of someone who has already made up their mind. I used to think pretty much the same way as you but I changed my mind because of the evidence presented... I think you dismiss the files on LHO because you dont know what he was doing and being set up to be doing over a sustained period. I genuinely think that with respect you don't know enough about it. Thats not to start an argument, its just my beief from what you've written. His history from leaving the USMC to Dallas has too much in it to not make one think hang on a minute. Too many connections to people that a lone nutter would have had nothing to do with. taught Russian in the USMC. Connections to Upper class White Russian community in America, pro Castro militants. A known CIA contract handler. You have to remember the WC said he had no connections to anyone whatsoever but he really really did. They cannot be waved away with a wave of indignation...


          Go through any of the books ranging from Brothers by David Talbot, Some one would have talked by Larry Hancock. Even the old classic "High Treason" which as some very heavy medical testimony and go through them and then more importantly their references section and you'll see what we're talking about. If you want to call us nutjobs and dismiss me as having no evidence, I've already said that's OK but like me you're going to have to do the leg work to get into this stuff to really have an informed opinion on this but only if you're prepared to. If you're not prepared to do that then bear that in mind when you post that I'm out there with such conviction.....
          Last edited by copenhagen; 24 Apr 13, 16:53.

          Comment


          • #80
            The simple fact that someone went to great trouble to impersonate Oswald at the embassies, and on the phone to the Russians, acknowledged with documentation by the CIA, FBI, and LBJ, tells you there was other people involved. LBJ used that FACT as an arm twister to get the Warren Comm. To settle on Oswald, rather then investigate fully and risk 'nuclear war'. His words. These are facts.
            "A common thug can kill someone, but it takes the talents of an intelligence service to make a murder appear to be a suicide or accident death." -- James Angleton, CIA, Chief of Counterintelligence.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              You haven't shown 'evidence'; yeah, Ruby was a criminal, but so were hundreds of others in Dallas at that period.

              The thing is that you hold up ordinary things as if they are special, and unconnected things as if they are proof.

              Intelligence agencies have files on people. That is normal. The fact that Oswald had a security clearance means there will be files on him in several agecies, along with every other serviceman who ever had clearance. That is a fact, not evidence.

              A nutjob chooses to kill the Prez. He picks a spot where he can do it. Or, he finds out he has access to a spot where he can do it.

              He does it.

              Three days later he is killed by another nutjob who is both a cop groupie, informant, and petty criminal.

              Nothing there really shocking. Its not unlikely.

              But to say that this was a black op planned and carried out by professionals...then I smell something. The weapon issues. Oswald at large. A man committing murder essentially on national TV.

              None of this comes across as planned or controlled. Its either real, or it is the single most inept black op planned.

              Yet the cover-up is perfect. Ruby dies without saying a word. No one else goes on record.
              You're throwing out some opinions, but based on what? It appears you haven't done research and when shown research you say 'that's not unlikely'. The alleged killer of the prez is shot in police custody and you call that 'not shocking'? What would be more shocking than that? 'Not unlikely' you said. Weird, I say.
              The Head of security is found 'deceptive' in his polygraph and you wave it off. Connections shown between Ruby and mob figures involved in CIA sponsored assassination plots and you wave it off.

              People have talked about their involvment. you would wave it off, because you have your mind made up because of...nothing apparently. you never post a source to support you assertions. My advice, if you are interested and not just making drive by unsupported assertions on the web for fun, read some books. Not to mention, I have posted excellent informative sites with the primary source documents about the CIA involvement with LHO. You haven't read them or you wouldn't repeat those uninformed statements about Oswald's files. Yet, you still comment.

              None of this comes across as planned or controlled. Its either real, or it is the single most inept black op planned.
              Based on your deep knowledge of black ops?

              The most nonsensical statement yet. It was controlled so well that you, and (although a minority in america) many others accept the story of a lone gunman. Pretty controlled. The Zapruder film was suppressed by the government for decades because it showed JFK's head blowing backwards. Dan Rather told America at the time that the film showed the head going forward to support the lone gunman story. Pretty controlled.

              It took the Government 15 years to declare the Warren Commission as false, and another 20 years to show the documents proving the CIA and FBI withheld important info about Oswald, his CIA connections and the medical malfeasance about JFK's wounds. The warren Comm. was very worried about reports from the New Orleans cops that Oswald was an FBI informant getting out to the public. We have the memos. They decided to keep it quiet. Now, years later, we know that he was an informant for the FBI. You say it's not important, 'lots of people are informants'. The Warren Comm. didn't share your naive thought, lots of people aren't alleged Presidential assassins. It also hurts the 'lone nut' profile they wanted to create. Pretty controlled.

              You just ignore those facts as if they don't matter. They shot the patsy before he could testify. Pretty controlled. The only thing inept was the Warren Comm. coverup. It's been exposed and debunked by our own government, although they waited a long time to do it.

              I suspect that you just like arguing on the internet and don't really care about the assassination. After all you rarely, if ever, post any support for your statements in any thread, you just throw em out there. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
              Last edited by unclefred; 24 Apr 13, 21:55.
              "A common thug can kill someone, but it takes the talents of an intelligence service to make a murder appear to be a suicide or accident death." -- James Angleton, CIA, Chief of Counterintelligence.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by unclefred View Post
                Read the material I provided.

                The material I provided, which you didn't read, is the FBI transcript, nor Garrison's.
                Perhaps I am missing it. Could you point it out or repost? I responded to this post by you.

                In 1993, PBS' Frontline secured a 1951 photograph of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans that shows both David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same unit. Ferrie was included in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's investigation (see previous entry). However, Ferrie denied to FBI investigators having ever known Oswald or having had any association with him. Ferrie of course, died before he could testify.

                CIA Document #1345-1057: the New Orleans connection Released in 1993, this document states that New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw "was in touch with the DCS [the CIA's Domestic Contact Service] from December 1948 to May 1956." In 1966, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison opened an investigation into the New Orleans connection to the assassination of JFK, which formed the basis of Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's investigation centered on an association between Shaw, former FBI agent Guy Bannister, pilot David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. In 1969, Shaw was charged with conspiring to kill Kennedy. Shaw testified under oath that he had never worked for the CIA. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...PageId=1168931


                From what I see above because LOH and Ferrie were in the CAP together than they conspired to kill JFK. Next you point out that because Shaw gave information to the CIA's DCS then he was indeed an agent and conspired to kill JFK. It is obvious he perjured himself but it is also obvious that there is no evidence he did more than give the CIA information on what he saw in his business travels through the world.

                Originally posted by unclefred View Post
                You have jumped to several odd conclusions. Do you know what 'evidence' is? Evidence is not proof. Proof is derived, by a consensus, from pieces of evidence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that. This is good circumstantial evidence, the kind that is presented in courtrooms everyday.
                I would ask the same of you. As far as I see you draw conclusions that just aren't there. Here is another example:

                The second paragraph stated: "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."

                Given that the authorities could not possibly by November 25 know these things to be true, and Katzenbach later admitted he knew very little at this stage, the memo is clearly advocating a political course irrespective of the truth of the assassination.


                You conclude that Katzenbach was telling the press secretary to do what, initiate a cover up? or remind him that the American people need to know what happened and a thorough job must be done in the investigation. Wouldn't it be important not to take one line out of context?
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  I hadn't checked this out since it moved to its own thread.
                  Nothing really new.
                  Actually I'd have to say there is nothing new from you.

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  1) Why put the shooter at such a bad angle if its is a multi-shooter conspiracy? You have to have every shooter at the same level, or the entry wound angles are going to be all wrong.
                  Actually I'd have to say there is nothing new from you. You toss out the above statement as if you are sure of how the assassination went down and how a cover up was being orchestrated. If evidence was being controlled then it is very easy to change things. Gerald Ford changed the wording of the description of the back wound, a very critical aspect of the single bullet theory. It is very easy to have the TSBD shooter be there as the set up for LHO to take the fall while shooting him from the front.

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  2) Why is Oswald, the heart & soul of a conspiracy cover-up, left unattended during the shooting?
                  Did it matter? It seems to have worked. People testified they saw him just before and just after the shooting but that was squashed.

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  3) Why bother with multiple shooters in the first place? Then & now anything's avalible in Dallas. Put a BAR or Thompson in play, and there are no uncertainties and no need for other shooters.
                  This is a joke, right?

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  4) Why use someone with such a weird background? Why not use some local nut as the fall guy, and build a better connection. There are hundreds of radical crazies in a town the size of Dallas. Probably well over a thousand.
                  Your descriptions seems at odds. Why use someone with a "weird background" when you can use a "local nut?" Am I the only one that sees this? If you have read anything of LHO's life you would know he is perfect and was the type often picked for work with the CIA. Establish the legend and then put him in an op. Once he is caught his background points to lone nut, marxist.

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  To fly as a conspiracy, you have to explain why such a half-a**ed plan was approved for such a desperate undertaking, and why a 100% secure cover-up was managed by a group who bungled the assassination so thoroughly.
                  Kennedy lived?

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  They managed to track and conceal/prevent any evidence or admission on record for decades, but couldn't keep eyes on Oswald for a hour.
                  There is no need. You are supposing that he was not acting on directive. His people may have told him to bring his rifle for someone else to use and meet us later. Then they directed the police to get him and he killed Tippet. After that Dallas PD does what any police force does when one of their own is killed.

                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Life is not neat & tidy. The JFK assassination looks like a real murder: untidy, lots of loose ends, and a sketchy outline of why.

                  Its when things line out nice & neat and everything fits that you have to start asking yourself WTF is going on.
                  I don't see anyone offering that any conspiracy was neat and tidy. I see that there were all sort of loose ends, some of which are still strong today.
                  Where do you see neat and tidy?
                  John

                  Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by unclefred View Post
                    Apparently you are unfamiliar with the HSCA and Church Commitee findings on these very mobsters being involved in plots, with the CIA, on Castro. The HSCA named them as probable conspirators in the JFK assassination. Too bad the primary mob witnesses were killed before providing more testimony...
                    I won't bother to provide the primary documents, you won't read them.
                    Your logic doesn't work. I didn't say the CIA wouldn't use the mob to kill Castro did I? I didn't say aything like that, did I? Try discussing what I did say. Yes, the CIA would have good reason to use the mob to kill Castro, they both wanted him dead and the mob had been in Cuba for years. They have contacts, know the turf, know how to kill, etc. Let's think now, Castro is still alive. (Maybe they are not too good at the killing part.) This does not prove that the mob was in on a conspiracy to kill JFK. Do you think the CIA is going to let criminals in on a conspiracy to kill the president? Wouldn't that be giving a bit too much power to people you can't trust?

                    By all means, provide the documents. You seem to ignore that you and I are on the same side, you just jump to too many conclusions. You want to argue that because an orange and lemon are both citrus fruits they taste the same. They don't.
                    John

                    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by unclefred View Post
                      The US press was pressured to keep silent from the beginning. Operation Mockingbird exposed some of why. The foreign press was very skeptical about the official story and where much more investigative.

                      I was on another history forum some time back and a poster stated 'it's ludicrous to believe the CIA would need to use the mafia for hits', this is why I don't believe in a conspiracy about JFK'.
                      I informed him about Cuba and the Congressional findings concerning the mafia and the CIA. I posted the links to the primary documents.
                      He didn't seem to digest that, and rather than evaluate this new chunk of reality, ignored it and posted some other uninformed opinion. He didn't seem to want to know the truth.

                      It's a bit depressing when we see that the openness of the 70's and the investigative spirit is gone and that kids are ignorant of these important history points.
                      Yes indeed you make a good point there. In many cases, if people are shown solid evidence that contradicts very strongly held beleifs , the option
                      is usually to ignore it. A lot of it is ego but it does take a strong sense of character to re-evaluate all you ever believed in or held dear. It can destabilise your world as it were....My grandmother has beleived some utter myths about the war but she just will not have the alternative depsite strong evidence to the contrary. In that sense the Warren Commision and its support network did an excellent job... If you want to believe you will do...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                        So if your argument is that Oswald was the lone shooter then please explain Frames 312-320 of the Zapruder film...

                        Explain how a shooter above and behind the target managed to get a frontal piercing headshot...
                        You do not calculate wound angle from film.

                        This is what I mean: people see significance in things that are not significant.

                        Actually I'd have to say there is nothing new from you. You toss out the above statement as if you are sure of how the assassination went down and how a cover up was being orchestrated. If evidence was being controlled then it is very easy to change things. Gerald Ford changed the wording of the description of the back wound, a very critical aspect of the single bullet theory. It is very easy to have the TSBD shooter be there as the set up for LHO to take the fall while shooting him from the front.
                        Well, based on the location of the rifle & cases, you have the shooter's angle. Its not a mystery. If you have a conspiracy, they would have to make sure each shooter had the same firer's angle of reference, or it would be evident that there were multiple shooters.

                        Did it matter? It seems to have worked. People testified they saw him just before and just after the shooting but that was squashed.
                        Its the single most important aspect of the murder: it shows he acted alone. If there was a conspiracy, men who were planning a murder of the President, the patsy would not be wandering around loose for hours after the shooting.

                        Witness statements are the least reliable form of evidence. In real murder cass, you commonly get conflicting statements. People want to associate themselves with an exciting event. They don't want to say 'I missed everything'. No, suddenly they recall information of key importance. Often they come to believe it themselves.

                        During the recent Boston bombing, during the hours they were looking for the shooter, my agency in Texas had multiple reports of sightings of the second shooter in our jurisdiction.


                        This is a joke, right?
                        No. You could have chopped the man to bits at that range. Where it it written that the assassain had to use a crappy rifle? Why not use the best weapon for the job?

                        Again, either a nut or really bad planning. If it is a conspiracy, JFK cannot leave the kill zone alive, and Oswald must be present to take the fall. this secret cabal certainly didn't cover their bases that day, despite being clever enough to walk away clear for decades afterward.

                        Your descriptions seems at odds. Why use someone with a "weird background" when you can use a "local nut?" Am I the only one that sees this? If you have read anything of LHO's life you would know he is perfect and was the type often picked for work with the CIA. Establish the legend and then put him in an op. Once he is caught his background points to lone nut, marxist.
                        Except people here are busy claiming Oswald's background proves him not to be a lone nut marxist. Why not use somebody like Sirhan Sirhan, a unknown mentally-ill young man, or the petty criminal who killed MLK?

                        There is no need. You are supposing that he was not acting on directive. His people may have told him to bring his rifle for someone else to use and meet us later. Then they directed the police to get him and he killed Tippet. After that Dallas PD does what any police force does when one of their own is killed.
                        Doesn't fly. Tibbet was shot down in what can only be described as a classic ped stop.

                        This was the patsy, the heart of the cover-up, and they send one officer, no back-up, no contingency, to pick up a guy who when found was on foot, moving? GPS didn't exist back then, nor cell phones. How did Tibbet find Oswald, if he was sent? Oswald did not want to be found, obviously.

                        Doesn't work on any level. You've clipped the President, and your patsy is in the wind. You send one officer, no backup, to bring him in.

                        Just does not fly.


                        I don't see anyone offering that any conspiracy was neat and tidy. I see that there were all sort of loose ends, some of which are still strong today.
                        Where do you see neat and tidy?
                        You didn't read my post correctly. I said real murders are untidy; I said conspiracies, being manufactured with an eye towards proof, are much neater and tighter.

                        I believe JFK was murdered by Oswald. It certainly reads like a routine murder case: in other words, a mess.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                          Yes indeed you make a good point there. In many cases, if people are shown solid evidence that contradicts very strongly held beleifs , the option
                          is usually to ignore it. A lot of it is ego but it does take a strong sense of character to re-evaluate all you ever believed in or held dear. It can destabilise your world as it were....My grandmother has beleived some utter myths about the war but she just will not have the alternative depsite strong evidence to the contrary. In that sense the Warren Commision and its support network did an excellent job... If you want to believe you will do...
                          I feel that the mexico city events may be the 'rosetta stone', as someone has said. I don't see how anyone could read that material and not realize there were other people and entities involved in the assassination and coverup.

                          When the CIA told Hoover about the impersonations of LHO at the embassies and in the phone call to the Soviets, he used that to leverage LBJ into rushing the judgement on LHO as quickly as possible, fearing global war. LBJ then used that same argument to twist Warren into forming the commission.

                          The person the fake LHO called was a known, to the CIA, soviet assassin.

                          Some have suggested it was a CIA operation get the result they wanted: quickly blame it on LHO and close the books.

                          Others have suggested it was to place blame on Castro, leading to an operation to remove him from power.

                          There was also another lengthy call to the Soviets that has disappeared.

                          "But even more remarkable is the fact that both translators remembered transcribing an Oswald phone call for which there is no transcript in the record. This call was lengthy, in English, and involved Oswald's request for money and passage to the Soviet Union" http://www.history-matters.com/archi...offs_0058a.htm

                          http://www.history-matters.com/essay...Gap_Update.htm
                          "A common thug can kill someone, but it takes the talents of an intelligence service to make a murder appear to be a suicide or accident death." -- James Angleton, CIA, Chief of Counterintelligence.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            You do not calculate wound angle from film.

                            This is what I mean: people see significance in things that are not significant...
                            Seriously? You watch those frames and don't conclude that it came from the front? That shot is pretty significant. But more to the point. You haven't actually offered an explanation as to what's happening in those frames...
                            BoRG
                            "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                              Seriously? You watch those frames and don't conclude that it came from the front? That shot is pretty significant. But more to the point. You haven't actually offered an explanation as to what's happening in those frames...
                              I don't know the frame count, but if its the one I'm thinking of, it looks llike (forget the proper term-been a while since my last promotion exam) hydro expansion. The shockwave of the bullet interacting with body fluid to create a pressure-created exit. Can be at up to IRRC 270 degrees from point of entry.

                              In short, hydrostatic shock interacting with fluid, blows a hole to release pressure.

                              Not uncommon in head wounds involving a high velocity round.

                              Bullets & the human body interact in odd ways. That's why we use autopsies.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                                I don't know the frame count, but if its the one I'm thinking of, it looks llike (forget the proper term-been a while since my last promotion exam) hydro expansion. The shockwave of the bullet interacting with body fluid to create a pressure-created exit. Can be at up to IRRC 270 degrees from point of entry.

                                In short, hydrostatic shock interacting with fluid, blows a hole to release pressure.

                                Not uncommon in head wounds involving a high velocity round.

                                Bullets & the human body interact in odd ways. That's why we use autopsies.
                                So in other words you haven't watched it and can't explain it... or why part of his skull gets blown to the rear deck of the car.
                                BoRG
                                "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X