HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So... The Majority Here A...

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:48 PM

 

So... The Majority Here At DU Think It Was A Conspiracy, As Do A Majority Of Americans...

And although I realize that might not mean much to some...

How come the minority ia so sensitive... and so vocal ???



163 replies, 15279 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 163 replies Author Time Post
Reply So... The Majority Here At DU Think It Was A Conspiracy, As Do A Majority Of Americans... (Original post)
WillyT Nov 2013 OP
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #1
JoePhilly Nov 2013 #92
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #2
Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #127
Scootaloo Nov 2013 #3
WillyT Nov 2013 #4
Scootaloo Nov 2013 #5
WillyT Nov 2013 #6
Scootaloo Nov 2013 #8
sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #13
Th1onein Nov 2013 #131
brush Nov 2013 #7
DanTex Nov 2013 #10
BootinUp Nov 2013 #12
brush Nov 2013 #16
DanTex Nov 2013 #17
brush Nov 2013 #24
BootinUp Nov 2013 #25
brush Nov 2013 #27
BootinUp Nov 2013 #31
brush Nov 2013 #34
BootinUp Nov 2013 #37
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #52
BootinUp Nov 2013 #56
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #65
BootinUp Nov 2013 #68
BootinUp Nov 2013 #83
DanTex Nov 2013 #57
stopbush Nov 2013 #58
DanTex Nov 2013 #61
stopbush Nov 2013 #63
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #64
DanTex Nov 2013 #32
JoePhilly Nov 2013 #128
DanTex Nov 2013 #26
brush Nov 2013 #30
DanTex Nov 2013 #33
brush Nov 2013 #35
DanTex Nov 2013 #38
Samantha Nov 2013 #59
DanTex Nov 2013 #67
eomer Nov 2013 #91
DanTex Nov 2013 #93
eomer Nov 2013 #95
DanTex Nov 2013 #96
eomer Nov 2013 #106
DanTex Nov 2013 #113
eomer Nov 2013 #120
DanTex Nov 2013 #122
eomer Nov 2013 #126
Samantha Nov 2013 #121
DanTex Nov 2013 #124
Samantha Nov 2013 #148
DanTex Nov 2013 #153
Samantha Nov 2013 #155
DanTex Nov 2013 #156
Samantha Nov 2013 #160
BootinUp Nov 2013 #161
struggle4progress Nov 2013 #140
Samantha Nov 2013 #149
struggle4progress Nov 2013 #150
stopbush Nov 2013 #66
brush Nov 2013 #69
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #71
stopbush Nov 2013 #72
brush Nov 2013 #73
BootinUp Nov 2013 #74
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #75
stopbush Nov 2013 #76
brush Nov 2013 #81
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #84
brush Nov 2013 #89
brush Nov 2013 #152
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #154
stopbush Nov 2013 #85
brush Nov 2013 #90
stopbush Nov 2013 #116
brush Nov 2013 #135
stopbush Nov 2013 #136
brush Nov 2013 #138
stopbush Nov 2013 #139
brush Nov 2013 #141
WillyT Nov 2013 #142
stopbush Nov 2013 #143
WillyT Nov 2013 #144
brush Nov 2013 #151
Rex Nov 2013 #98
stopbush Nov 2013 #77
BootinUp Nov 2013 #9
Kaleva Nov 2013 #11
shraby Nov 2013 #14
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #15
WillyT Nov 2013 #20
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #21
grantcart Nov 2013 #19
shraby Nov 2013 #158
grantcart Nov 2013 #163
Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #79
grantcart Nov 2013 #18
WillyT Nov 2013 #22
BootinUp Nov 2013 #23
stopbush Nov 2013 #80
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #28
Jetboy Nov 2013 #29
DanTex Nov 2013 #36
Jetboy Nov 2013 #39
DanTex Nov 2013 #40
Jetboy Nov 2013 #42
DanTex Nov 2013 #48
Jetboy Nov 2013 #51
DanTex Nov 2013 #55
Jetboy Nov 2013 #88
greyl Nov 2013 #43
Jetboy Nov 2013 #47
greyl Nov 2013 #82
Jetboy Nov 2013 #86
greyl Nov 2013 #157
Jetboy Nov 2013 #159
stopbush Nov 2013 #78
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #94
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #100
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #102
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #111
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #114
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #118
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #123
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #133
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #134
DanTex Nov 2013 #130
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #101
jberryhill Nov 2013 #132
Rex Nov 2013 #41
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #44
polichick Nov 2013 #45
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #50
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #53
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #54
DanTex Nov 2013 #60
Silent3 Nov 2013 #97
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #129
Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #137
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #147
colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #46
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #49
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #87
jberryhill Nov 2013 #104
HockeyMom Nov 2013 #107
jberryhill Nov 2013 #109
stopbush Nov 2013 #62
Rex Nov 2013 #99
stopbush Nov 2013 #108
Rex Nov 2013 #110
stopbush Nov 2013 #112
Rex Nov 2013 #115
stopbush Nov 2013 #117
Rex Nov 2013 #119
stopbush Nov 2013 #125
gopiscrap Nov 2013 #70
HooptieWagon Nov 2013 #103
jberryhill Nov 2013 #105
WillyT Nov 2013 #145
upi402 Nov 2013 #162
whatchamacallit Nov 2013 #146

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:53 PM

1. So vocal?

Asks the guy who has started a half a dozen threads about this shit in the last 72 hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:41 AM

92. Its getting to be a lot like Fox's war on Christmas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:57 PM

2. You mean like posting 10 different threads about the same thing?

Oh...wait.

It's like seeing someone say repeatedly "but Obama was born in Kenya!" or "but the moon landing was faked!" Are you going to just let patently false information be propagated?

I love the framing on this issue, too. Conspiracy theorists "are passionate about finding the truth", while people who believe in evidence are "trying to shut down discussion".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:50 PM

127. I thought Obama was born on the moon but

the Kenyan birth certificate was faked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:59 PM

3. Well, when you repeatedly "call out" people for not sharing your belief...

 

I imagine they might get a little irritated.

Also, argument by popularity doesn't make something fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:03 PM

4. I Don't Believe I've Ever Told ANYBODY To Stop Posting Their Beliefs, Concerns, Positions, Etc...

 

Yet some of us get a fucking mouthful on our side.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:04 PM

5. Well, the answer is obvious

 

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a CIA disinfo agent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:11 PM

6. Whoa... You Have A Good Night OK ???

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:13 PM

8. LOL

 

Sorry, I really couldn't resist. That was the standard answer over on another forum I used to participate in, back before it melted down into Ronpaulpalooza. "YOu don't agree with me, you must be a disinfo agent!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:56 PM

13. Really? If that is how you approach issues, just make stuff up, then it's no wonder

you believe what a vast majority of others who, rather than make stuff up, actually put a little effort into their decisions.

I've never seen Willy do what you just accused him of. Can you post a link or something to back up what you are claiming?

We Conspiracy Theorists, unlike the Deniers, like to see some evidence when claims are made, ANY claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:18 PM

131. but others have...

I was called a nut case conspiracy theorist with nothing but flapping lips and all I said was that I didn't believe the "official" version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:12 PM

7. The most obvious but unfocused on question is who . . .

put Oswald up to killing Kennedy, because even if he did kill Kennedy he isn't the one who really killed Kennedy.

That would be the people who put him up to it.

And do you actually think those people wouldn't hedge their bets and make sure someone else was also shooting?

If you're going to kill a president you damn sure are going to make sure because the guy you've set up as the fall guy with a cheap rifle might miss.

There's much speculation that there was a second shooter.

If there was, he wasn't caught. Oswald was and was caught and had to be silenced.

Oswald was silenced by the same people who killed Kennedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:47 PM

10. Of all the errors in this post, I'll pick just one.

If your plan is to kill Kennedy and then blame a lone nut, why on earth would you set up two shooters? Unless the second gunman missed cleanly, and the bullets he fired are never found, using a second gunman would leave obvious evidence that would disprove the lone nut cover story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:48 PM

12. rofl. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:16 PM

16. Why kill Oswald then if he was the lone nut?

Somebody wanted him dead, and dead quickly.

Too many unanswered questions (locked away for years btw) to believe it was Oswald and Oswald only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:19 PM

17. Jack Ruby killed him because he was angry that Oswald shot Kennedy.

Now do you want to try to answer my question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:31 PM

24. Google Ruby

You'll find out that he was no Kennedy fan.

And you'll also find that he had "bosses."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:33 PM

25. So thats what you consider a reputable source?

Just google and whatever comes up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:41 PM

27. To believe, imo, that Oswald killed Kennedy . . .

on his own without anyone behind him, and then Ruby killed Kennedy because Ruby didn't like that Oswald killed Kennedy . . . I mean, come on.

That's a little too simplistic for me, too black and white.

You can believe that it was that simple but I, like the majority of Americans, don't believe there was no one else involved in those two killing but Oswald and Ruby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:49 PM

31. I don't claim to know what was in either man's mind.

Clearly that is just conjecture to do so. There is no evidence of a wider conspiracy that I am aware of. And it seems doubtful there will be any new revelations at this point. As for the single shooter case. That is settled by the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:53 PM

34. Believe the single shooter thing if you want

I prefer to keep my head out of the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:00 AM

37. My dear brush

There were only 2 bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally. They were fired from Oswalds rifle and that is the only rifle they could have come from. There has been some very good work to reproduce the shots, the bullet paths, and what could and could not have happened to the bullets when they struck.

Oswald fled the scene and killed a street cop. His actions before and after the assassination point to his guilt.

Finally no intelligent person would have picked Oswald to be their assassin for such a job anyways. He was a mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:36 AM

52. Where is the evidence of that?

 

If I understand correctly, there was only one bullet found that matched the ballistics of the rifle found in the depository. And it wasn't found in a body or near the shooting scene. it was found in a gurney at the hospital that wasn't even used for patients. The Warren commission presented their theory that this was that self same "magic bullet" that took the remarkable trajectory, through Kennedy's back, then into Connally's body where it shattered his wrist, leaving bullet fragments. This this same bullet emerged hours later completely intact, even though fragments of that "same bullet" were still in Connally's body.

If I understand correctly, the Warren conspiracy theory is silent about any other ballistics information. If there were any other bullets recovered and tested, that evidence is till sealed, even 50 years later. Why is that? Why would the government still see a need to seal this information. All the principals are dead, right? There wasn't a conspiracy, so the only principals are JFK, Jackkie, Connally, Oswald, and Ruby. And they have all been dead almost 20 years.

If the story is as simple as the Warren conspiracy believers say it is, then let's see the evidence that is still sealed. Why should America have to wait another 25 years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:03 AM

56. CE399 The so called magic bullet

was found on Connally's stretcher. It had barely penetrated his thigh and is believed to have fallen out while he was being transferred.

It was slightly squashed because it tumbled while traveling from Kennedy to Connally and this forced lead out of the end. The weight of CE399 indicates it lost lead enough to leave the fragments in Connally.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=73503

The trajectory analysis put forth by the Warren Commission has been found to be sound by several other analysis like 3d computer modeling by forensic ballistic experts and others. It was very closely reproduced in a live shooting experiment on a Discovery Channel special several years ago. In fact it is the only way it could have happened. It is those on the CT side who are claiming magic. Where did the bullet go if not the way the Warren Commission says.

Tests done on bullet fragments collected from both men and the car were metallurgically matched to show they came from the same 2 bullets. The 3 casings found in the TSBD were all fired from Oswalds gun.

There has been a ton of evidence released, like over 98% and final release of the rest is supposed to be in 2017. I am fairly certain all the ballistics evidence is released. In the early years the FBI did withhold some of the testing of the fragments but it has since been made available and further testing has been done that confirms the conclusions.

If you doubt the SBT and all there is a 10 min video here that is pretty convincing


and then a longer NOVA special that was done more recently here that is very well done.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:23 AM

65. Nonsense.

 

There is no significance of the casings. You can't do ballistics matches of the casings. Besides nobody is arguing whether there might have been three shots from that location. Maybe there were. Maybe there weren't. It isn't terribly significant. If Oswald expected to get away with this crime, he would have taken some action to dispose of the weapon. The fact that he evidently did not leaves a real chain of custody problem, just as we have with that bullet that fractured Connally's arm yet some how emerged practically intact on a gurney that some witnesses contend wasn't even used with patients that night.

A "metallurgical test" is not the same as a ballistics test. Any bullets of the same type from the same manufacturer would have the same metallurgy.

But again, the big problem is that you only "know" what the government decided to release. You don't know all the stuff they decided had to be sealed for 75 years.

It doesn't speak very highly of a person's reasoning powers if they are willing to form conclusions when they know that a significant body of evidence is still withheld by the same parties that are accused of being involved in the assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #65)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:45 AM

68. Oh boy. I feel like Sam Beckett, when he just leaped into another person.

Casings will have marks from the firing pin. These marks can be matched to a firearm.

You are arguing that the casings and weapon (which belonged to Oswald) would not have been found (within 10 minutes of the shooting) and where it was if he did it?

Interesting twist, lol.

I have already posted things for you to watch about the "magic bullet". I will leave it to you to decide if you want to watch it.

Correction on the ballistics analysis courtesy of Bolo Boffin:
There is no evidence excluding any of the discovered bullet fragments associated with the Kennedy shooting from being fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. At one time, the government asserted all fragments could be tied to the rifle. However, the test used to make this assertion, CBLA, was demonstrated in 2007 to not be reliable enough to make this assertion. 2007 was the year Bugliosi released Reclaiming History.

However, CE 399, also referred to as the "pristine" or "magic" bullet, and two of the large fragments, CE 567 and CE 569, were large enough to be identified as being fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others. This was not on the basis of the faulty CBLA test, but on a comparison to the striations found on them and on a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=4716


As for the release of documents I already commented on that. Here is a huge archive of records you can peruse:
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_jfk.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BlueStreak (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:09 AM

57. Briefly.

There were two bullets matched to Oswalds gun. The first is the "magic" bullet, and, despite what Oliver Stone says, the trajectory is completely unremarkable once you take into account the placements of the seats in the car. Also, again despite what Oliver Stone says, there is no scientific reason to doubt that the bullet would have remained in one piece, since it had a full metal jacket, and it went through a lot of soft tissue, which slowed it down a lot before it hit any bone in Connelly.

The bullet was not found completely intact, it was still in one piece, but it was visibly deformed. The recovered bullet weighed about 160 grains less than a pristine bullet, whereas the lead recovered from Connelly's arm weighed about 130 grains.

The second matched bullet is the bullet that hit JFK in the head, which broke apart. Two bullet fragments were found inside the car, and these were matched to Oswald's rifle. I'm not sure where you are reading about the assassination that is leaving out these key pieces of information.

As far as sealed information, very little information remains sealed. Even though the principals are all dead, that doesn't mean that everyone that might have a privacy interest is dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:17 AM

58. Thanks for presenting the facts - saved me the time.

Once again, we're dealing with a person who apparently gets their "facts" in the case entirely from Oliver Stone's JFK, a movie that Stone himself labeled "a fiction."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #58)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:19 AM

61. I continue to be shocked at just how few facts the CTers are actually aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #61)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:21 AM

63. Actually, they are willfully and blissfully unaware of the facts in the JFK case.

Heavy on the "willful" aspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #61)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:22 AM

64. Its a conspiracy of ignorance.

Willful ignorance I swear to gawd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:49 PM

32. Since you ignored my last question, let's try round 2.

If you're going to silence Oswald, wouldn't you hire a more experienced hit man? Like maybe someone who's actually done this kind of thing before? Someone who understands that you don't carry out a hit in a room full of cops and cameras? I mean, presumably this is a pretty important operation, you're not going to go with a rookie.

Also, if you send Ruby in to kill Oswald, you still have the same problem as before: someone in police custody who knows too much and needs to be silenced. So now you need to send a third person in to kill Ruby...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:55 PM

128. And why not kill Oswald before the police catch him.

You sent him. You armed and trained him. You know where he's going to be.

You should be able to kill him before the police ever get to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:37 PM

26. Yes, if you google hard enough you can eventually find a website that says whatever you want.

But, as a factual matter, you are mistaken.

PS You still haven't answered the question about the second gunman. Are you just going to ignore that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:44 PM

30. What factual matter do you have that Oswald killed Kennedy alone but the Warren Commission?

The majority of Americans don't believe that.

What makes you so 100% sure?

I've been around long enough to know things usually are not that simple.

But keep on drinking the kool-aid if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:52 PM

33. All of the testimony and the evidence on record, and with the findings

of multiple investigations. Along with the fact that there's not a single shred of evidence that Ruby was working for anyone when he shot Oswald. And the fact that it would make no sense at all for any organization to hire a "hit man" with zero experience to shoot Oswald in front of a bunch of TV cameras, guaranteeing that he would get arrested and leave another loose end...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:54 PM

35. Sure, sure. Keep believing it if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:01 AM

38. Yes, that's what I do in the face of conclusive evidence.

I still haven't managed to figure out what your criterion is for believing things. Obviously, it has nothing to do with evidence or reason. My guess is some combination of Oliver Stone movies and websites lots of flashing neon all-caps and exclamation points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:17 AM

59. The Warren Commission did not have factual evidence that Oswald acted alone

All of the fingerprints in the sniper's nest were identified except for one. The Warren Commission put an expedited request in to have all fingerprints in that area identified to eliminate the possibility of a second shooter. It almost succeeded but not quite. That one fingerprint remained unidentified for 35 years.

Then sometime during the late 90s it was identified as belonging to Mac Wallace, a man who was a lot of different things, but significantly a KKK sympathizer, a convicted murderer, and a long-time Johnson associate and a former marine. The fingerprint was identified by fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby, and that same fingerprint was independently identified by a French fingerprint expert who had simply been given the print, not the name of the suspect or the name of the case being investigated. The latter confirmation was obtained to support the findings of Darby.

This information is painstakingly outlined by one of Johnson's lawyer's, Barr McClellan, father of Scott McClellan, in the book Blood, Money and Power. This was also the source of the special on the History Channel that the Johnson family angrily contested and demanded time to contradict. The people on the panel who ultimately appeared to contradict these findings did not address any of those allegations.

There are a number of documents and exhibits in the last part of the book.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:30 AM

67. The Mac Wallace story is a fraud concocted by conspiracy theorists.

Vincent Bugliosi actually interviewed Nathan Darby about it. The unidentified print was a palm print, but the print that the conspiracy theorists brought Darby to match (and claimed to be the unidentified print) was a fingerprint.

Nevertheless, the myth of Wallace being one of the shooters of Kennedy persists. Conspiracy theorist Walt Brown, the editor of the substantive JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, claimed, in a May 29, 1998, press conference at the Conspiracy Museum in Dallas and in the October 2001 edition of his publication, that a latent print examiner from Texas, Nathan Darby, was furnished with a copy of the only latent print found on the cardboard cartons inside the sniper’s nest that was never identified,54† as well as the 1951 fingerprint card for Wallace following his arrest for the murder of John Kinser, and that the expert made a positive match, finding fourteen points of identification. (Recall that our boy Loy Factor put Wallace several windows to the west of the sniper’s nest.) According to Darby’s March 9, 1998, affidavit, the match was of “the left little finger.”55

On November 20, 2001, I spoke over the telephone with Darby. Eighty-seven at the time, he told me he had been the head of the Austin, Texas, police department’s Identification and Criminal Records Section for several years. He had retired from the force and was still living in Austin. I told him I had trouble with his finding a “match” between prints found at the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor and the fingerprint exemplar card of Malcolm Wallace. “Why?” he asked. “Because,” I pointed out, “the unidentified latent print found on the sixth floor was a palm print, not a fingerprint, and unless you’ve come up with something new, I’ve never heard of anyone matching a palm print with a fingerprint.” Darby, sensing he had been taken, told me that he had been given “two fingerprints, one from a card, the other a latent. It was all blind. I didn’t know and wasn’t told who they belonged to (it was much later, he said, that he heard Malcolm Wallace’s name mentioned), although I recognized the layout of the card (he said all identifying features had been blacked out) as that of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I wasn’t given any palm print. They were both fingerprints. Of course, you can’t compare a palm print with a fingerprint.”


Bugliosi, Vincent (2007-05-17). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Locations 25490-25506). Norton. Kindle Edition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #67)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:38 AM

91. Bugliosi is full of it.

Bugliosi took a confused accounting of the fingerprint evidence that said the only unidentified print was a palm print and from that he made a wildly mistaken (intentionally false?) inference that Darby was presented a palm print to compare with a fingerprint. In fact there were other latent prints that could be called unidentified and it was one of these - a fingerprint - that Darby was given to compare with the fingerprint card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #91)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:48 AM

93. No, you are full of it.

What Bugliosi pointed out is that the unidentified print was a palm print, while what Darby was presented was a fingerprint. Therefore, what Darby was presented was not the unidentified print. It's not that complicated.

It's actually pretty funny that you are evidently incapable of reading two simple paragraphs. Why don't we try this again.

On November 20, 2001, I spoke over the telephone with Darby. Eighty-seven at the time, he told me he had been the head of the Austin, Texas, police department’s Identification and Criminal Records Section for several years. He had retired from the force and was still living in Austin. I told him I had trouble with his finding a “match” between prints found at the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor and the fingerprint exemplar card of Malcolm Wallace. “Why?” he asked. “Because,” I pointed out, “the unidentified latent print found on the sixth floor was a palm print, not a fingerprint, and unless you’ve come up with something new, I’ve never heard of anyone matching a palm print with a fingerprint.” Darby, sensing he had been taken, told me that he had been given “two fingerprints, one from a card, the other a latent. It was all blind. I didn’t know and wasn’t told who they belonged to (it was much later, he said, that he heard Malcolm Wallace’s name mentioned), although I recognized the layout of the card (he said all identifying features had been blacked out) as that of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I wasn’t given any palm print. They were both fingerprints. Of course, you can’t compare a palm print with a fingerprint.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #93)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:21 AM

95. Read Bugliosi's confused account as many times as you'd like, it's still wrong.

Bugliosi took someone's statement that there was one unidentified print and that it was a palm print and inferred from that, mistakenly, that the print that was shown to Darby was a palm print. In fact there were other prints whose identification was in question and it was one of those other prints that was shown to Darby.

Bugliosi's theory that an experienced print expert mistook a palm print for a fingerprint and then mistakenly concluded there was a fourteen-point match between a palm print and a fingerprint is extremely silly.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #95)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:24 AM

96. OK then. It's been a interesting trip down the rabbit hole...

Even after Bugliosi quotes Darby as saying "I wasn’t given any palm print. They were both fingerprints," you continue to insist that Bugliosi is claiming that Darby was given a palm print.

I'll admit, you've reached a level of delusion higher than the average CTer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:58 AM

106. Bugliosi claims it was a palm print compared with a fingerprint, Darby says it was two fingerprints

I've put Darby's quotes (and a slight bit of unquoted attribution) in [font color='red']red[/font] and Bugliosi's statements in [font color='blue']blue[/font]. Clearly it is Bugliosi who says that it was a palm print and a fingerprint while Darby will have none of it, saying that of course he didn't compare a palm print with a fingerprint, that it was obviously two fingerprints he compared.

[font color='red']“Why?”[/font] he asked. [font color='blue']“Because,”[/font] I pointed out, [font color='blue']“the unidentified latent print found on the sixth floor was a palm print, not a fingerprint, and unless you’ve come up with something new, I’ve never heard of anyone matching a palm print with a fingerprint.”[/font] Darby, sensing he had been taken, told me that [font color='red']he had been given “two fingerprints, one from a card, the other a latent. It was all blind. I didn’t know and wasn’t told who they belonged to[/font] (it was much later, he said, that he heard Malcolm Wallace’s name mentioned), [font color='red']although I recognized the layout of the card[/font] (he said all identifying features had been blacked out) [font color='red']as that of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I wasn’t given any palm print. They were both fingerprints. Of course, you can’t compare a palm print with a fingerprint.”[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #106)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:21 PM

113. Sigh. Bugliosi is saying that the prints that Darby matched were not the unidentified latent prints

because the identified latent prints were palm prints, not fingerprints. Therefore, the conspiracy theorists that approached Darby gave him the wrong set of prints to match. Which is why Darby sensed that he had been taken.

How do we know that only a palm print remained unidentified? From the Warren Commission evidence:

Enclosed for your information are two copies of a self-explanatory communication with attachments from our Dallas Office dated September 14, 1964, bringing you up to date on our efforts to identify the latent fingerprints and palm prints. It is pointed out that only one latent palm print remains to be identified.


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=146906

Wait, lemme guess. The Warren Commission documents were lies, part of an elaborate coverup to try and discredit a fingerprint analysis that would be performed 30 years later. Is that it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #113)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:33 PM

120. So you're sticking to your story that a fingerprint expert found a 14-point match

between a palm print and a fingerprint.

Sigh indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #120)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:37 PM

122. LOL. When proven run the conspiracy nut runs and hides.

Do you really not get it? Or do you think that you look less dumb by pretending to not understand the English language than by trying to actually defend the preposterous fingerprint analysis.

I gotta say, it's a pretty close call...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #122)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:47 PM

126. When you've made an ass of yourself, claim victory!

Very slick, Tex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #67)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:35 PM

121. I usually agree with Vincent Bugliosi but not this time

Was it his intention to trick the 87 year old Darby when he said the print was a palm print, not a fingerprint? I just don't get that. Darby wrote a 5 page Affidavit in 1998 and attached several exhibits. He examined a latent print, not a palm print:

"A latent fingerprint is the production of the ridges when the finger has been placed on a surface. The ridges of the finger leave a residue, body fluids and chemicals on the surface touched. The latent prints are recovered and compared to the inked prints." (Quote from p. 3 of 10 pages, of A. Nathan Darby Affidavit 9 March 1998), reprinted within Exhibits, Pictures and Documents segment at the end of Barr McClellan's book, "Blood, Money & Power."

I have also read that Darby was threatened with having his credentials revoked as a result of his identification of Wallace's print.

I am going to try to get back to you later today with the other independent expert who reviewed blind this same latent print and had no knowledge with what case it was associated with yet still managed to identify Wallace's print.

But as has been said before, when experts disagree, you be the judge. So if you feel this has been discredited by Bugliosi that is your prerogative. Looking at the overabundance of evidence presented on this one subject by Johnson's lawyer himself, and reading what other experts have said, I do believe there is no doubt Wallace was a shooter that day. Bugliosi had no close personal connection with the chain of events as they evolved over years, but Barr McClellan did. He worked closely with Clark, Johnson's attorney for decades, so I believe those two are much more likely to have the most credible input on this matter.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #121)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:41 PM

124. His intention was to demonstrate that the conspiracy theorists did not actually

present the unidentified print from the sniper's nest to Darby for analysis. It was a fraud.

Why? Because the identified print was a palm print but the prints matched by Darby were fingerprints.

How do we know that the unidentified print was a palm print? Because Warren commission documents clearly state that the only remaining unidentified print was a palm print.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4090448
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=146906

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #124)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:30 AM

148. First of all, Barr McClellan was one of Johnson's attorneys, not some remote conspiracy theorist

The fingerprint evidence was obtained through the Warren Commission itself. The print had been lifted from one of the boxes stacked in the sniper's nest of the depository.

Darby was considered an expert in his field. His affidavit attaches pictures (5), and they are the pictures of the left-little finger.

Darby later also reconsidered his affidavit and identified additional match points. He was not originally given Wallace's name or the name of the case. Confirmation was sought outside of the United States since politcs was entering into the debate. The match was confirmed by French print experts, also under a blind analysis.

Frankly, McClellan had first-hand experience with Johnson and worked directly for Clark for decades. For that reason, I am inclined to take his analysis over anyone who did not have that type of direct contact with the principals and the issues.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #148)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:27 AM

153. He was most definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Among other things, he claimed to have "confirmed" that LBJ was behind eleven different murders in Texas. He also claimed that there were three shooters at JFK, and that the head shot was from the grassy knoll. We know this is impossible from the forensic evidence -- the only way there could have been more than one shooter is if the other shooters missed cleanly, and neither they nor any of the bullets or shell casings were ever found.

Nobody is disputing that Darby is an expert. What people dispute is whether the fingerprints that he matched were actually found at the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The only evidence of this is that McClellan says so: the word of one conspiracy theorist. On the other side is the fact that this would be the only evidence, not just to put Wallace at the scene of the crime, but to even suggest that he and Oswald knew each other, or that Wallace was even in Dallas that day.

As I pointed out, the problem with the story is that there were no unidentified fingerprints left at the scene, only one palm print. This is clear in that document I linked to in the other post. Which means, if McClellan is telling the truth, there are only two possibilities, regarding the fingerprint that McClellan showed Darby:
1) The fingerprint is one of the ones that had already been matched to someone else by the Warren Commission, which means that now we have one fingerprint that matches two different individuals.
2) McClellan went back to the scene of the crime 30 years later and found a new fingerprint that the original investigation missed.
Neither of these is particularly likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #153)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:25 PM

155. He was a member of Johnson's legal team and had inside information

As such he was privy to confidential information, attended meetings, kept his own notes and files and was the recipient of information of a confidential information from colleagues. That is not "theorist" -- that is a person who has access to facts.

Yes, he does report there were three shooters, and I believe that as well. Wallace was actually recruited by Clark to be the primary sniper for the assassination. He had done work of this nature for Clark. You need to know the relationship between these primary principals extended over decades.

Clark told Wallace to find someone to act as a fall guy for the assassination. That is where Oswald came in, he was that designated fall guy. He had no long-term relationship with this group of people but was lured into attending a meeting of Marxists by Wallace. Wallace slowly built up the relationship and eventually asked him to participate in the assassination. Wallace and Oswald both were sitting in the sniper's nest and the plan was they would fire simultaneously, attacking Kennedy from the rear, and when the limousine reached a certain spot, that was precisely when they both were to fire. Oswald was not perceived to be "reliable" enough to sign him up to be the actual second sniper.

A further prong to the plan was to place a second sniper on the Grassy Knoll who would fire at Kennedy from the front should Wallace and Oswald not accomplish their goal. This was an experienced hit man referred to only as "Junior" and I believe his real name is not divulged. He was recommended by someone in the Government whose name I do not wish to report here. He is referred to in other places also simply as "Junior." In other words, this assassination was planned so carefully, there was no way President Kennedy would live past that limousine ride. No way.

Wallace supplied all of the bullets used that day.

When the car Kennedy was riding on was nearly at the spot where Oswald and Wallace would fire simultaneously, Oswald was so excited he could not contain himself and fired too soon. He did in fact miss. The bullet hit the payment in front of the Lincoln and ricocheted to a spot where it was never found. Wallace fired a quick second shot, aimed at the center of Kennedy's head. But it was a bit low and to the right and hit Kennedy in the shoulder blade. It was deflected and exited at the tie knot and traveled further to crack the windshield. (We have all read about that cracked windshield, but no one ever explained how that happened to my knowledge.) And this is the famous frame we have seen of Kennedy's nervous system taking over, his hands making a fist as they rise with his elbows out.

Oswald shot again and missed again (so there you go, one shooter missed twice) but he did hit Connelly. That bullet hit Connelly's back shoulder, came out at the right nipple, hit his wrist and defected to lodge in Conelly's thigh.

As the car continued to move forward, Junior saw the President still erect and fired a fourth shot. It is described in the book as a shot that Junior made while aiming right between the eyes on Kennedy's face. That was the fatal bullet which exploded his skull. That bullet fragmented as well, with bits of it flung to differed places described by McClellan. According to him, snipers often work in pairs.

I have paraphrased this actual shooting information from Blood, Money and Power , and it can be specifically located on pages 204, 205 and 206.

Regarding the fingerprints, McClellan requested and receive the print evidence from the Warren Commission. But to address your point about the Wallace knowing Oswald, details of prior meetings are discussed in the book. But there is a third possibility why the Warren Commission mentioned a palm print as opposed to a fingerprint. The palm print might have been the most prevalent print (perhaps it was on the side of the box he moved in the sniper's nest) but the fingerprints extending from that palm might have been on the bottom. This is just a guess on my part. I have shuffled many boxes in law firms, and they usually have holes in the side where one inserts their thumbs, the palms are on the side of the box, and the fingers on the bottom.... Darby's ten-page affidavit consists of 5 pages of what is clearly fingerprints.

I think it is totally fine for you to disagree with McClellan but he does not deserve to be treated so disrespectfully. This is a man that had privileged information who had a Herculean struggle to reveal what he knew to the public. I salute him for that. As I read his book the first time, he mentioned certain things that I had read before that were never explored or explained. For instance, the one eye-witness who said he thought he heard two shots fired simultaneously (that would have been Oswald's first shot and the almost immediately following shot fired by Wallace), people who said there was a shot fired from the Grassy Knoll, statements to the fact there were attendees with false Secret Service credentials -- just to name a few. The Warren Commission, one must remember, was controlled by Lyndon Johnson himself. It's final report was not unanimous. It is extremely difficult to prove a negative, if not impossible, but suffice it to say the Warren Commission did not prove Wallace acted alone. The fact it left unidentified one fingerprint for 35 years substantiates that fact.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #155)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:52 PM

156. Tell you what.

I disagree with just about everything in this post. But I like your sincerity and your overall tone. So I will pick up McClellan's book and read it.

A few points in rebuttal.

I think it is totally fine for you to disagree with McClellan but he does not deserve to be treated so disrespectfully.

I would counter that my treatment of McClellan is not nearly as disrespectful as your (and McClellan's) treatment of LBJ: accusing him of assassinating the president (and others). Whatever McClellan might have done to deserve respect, LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Accusing McClellan of faking a fingerprint is mild in comparison to accusing LBJ of murder.

Regarding the fingerprints, McClellan requested and receive the print evidence from the Warren Commission.

Sure. That doesn't come close to proving that the fingerprints he showed Darby were the same ones he got from the WC. The fact that Darby has pages of affadavits is completely irrelevant to this question. Since the test was blind, nothing that Darby said could possibly have any bearing on whether the prints were actually from the TSBD. Again, the WC clearly states that the only unidentified prints were palm prints. There is nothing at all to suggest that the unidentified palm prints also contained a fingerprint.

It would seem to be a trivial matter to perform a verified fingerprint analysis, where someone other than a conspiracy theorist verifies the fact that the matched fingerprint was actually taken from the TSBD.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #156)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 01:47 AM

160. I am impressed

and a little surprised. Surprised because I was going to suggest that to you. I waited two days before responding and found myself trying instead to give you more detail. I found myself thinking that due to the fierceness of your posts you would not consider even looking at the possibility. So I was certainly wrong about that, wasn't I?

But even if you finish the book and still do not agree with certain things, I feel sure you will be amazed at the wealth of detail you learn about Johnson. I knew a lot about Johnson before this book was published. I made a point of learning more about him years ago. I believe you will be stunned at the level of corruption he practiced all of his adult life, and the number of criminal acts in which he was involved.

But I hope you let me know what you think. I have a ton of political books I have collected over the years, and I count this one as among the best.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #156)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 02:41 AM

161. Oh Dear

I wouldn't waste 2 seconds on that book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 07:21 PM

140. ONE photocopy of a cardboard-box print was claimed to match a photocopy

of an inked little-finger print of Mac Wallace's

That alleged match might be more convincing had the examiner made the identification from originals, and even then it might be suspect, since there are actually no clear-cut standards for fingerprint identification

As good cases are built from multiple and independent lines of evidence, not from a single likely-to-be-questioned claim, one should, in pursuing this particular hypothesis, want to find other evidence that Wallace could have handled that box or perhaps evidence that he was in the Book Depository before the shooting

Wallace did work many years as an administrator for Dallas-based conglomerate Ling-Temco-Vought, but the 10 January 1971 Dallas Morning News obituary says "A native of Mount Pleasant, he had lived in Dallas for 30 years. before moving to California about 10 years ago. He had recently returned to Dallas"

That suggests he did not actually live in Dallas after about 1961; and although the fact that Ling-Temco-Vought was Dallas-based might have given Wallace reason to travel to Dallas sometimes, it would remain to show that he actually did so soon before the assassination

Wikipedia indicates Ling had begun as an electronics company, and Temco and Vought as aircraft company, with the conglomerate diversifying into aerospace and airlines, car rental, electronics, meat packing, pharmaceuticals, sporting goods, and steel -- none of which would provide any reasonable cover for a visit by administrator Wallace for a visit to the Book Depository at any time

And so far as I know, nobody has ever credibly claimed to have identified Wallace (under any name) as being in the Depository

Of course, as Wallace died in 1971, anybody accusing him, in 1998 or after, of assassinating Kennedy, has probably been safe from any defamation suit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #140)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:08 AM

149. Wallace was murdered in 1971 as a result of his exhaust being rigged

He was eliminated because he kept demanding more money from Clark. With part of the carbon monoxide fixed to flow into his car, coupled with the fact he took medicine for narcolepsy, he fell asleep at the wheel and drove off the road. He died of massive head injuries and carbon monoxide poisoning.

I seriously doubt anyone accusing Wallace of a murder would worry about defamation suits during any year. He was a hit man for Clark and even was tried and convicted for the murder of a man named Doug Kinser. McClellan also discusses Wallace's murder of Henry Marshall, which Wallace staged as a suicide.

Wallace is a man who did Johnson and Clark "dirty work" for years.

McClellan credits Wallace with being the one who recruited Oswald to participate in the assassination. Oswald was not considered to be "reliable" but Wallace was looking for -- here comes that word -- a patsy or a fall guy to take the blame.

On the day of the assassination, Wallace parked behind the depository and stood with a man named Yates who had false Secret Service credentials. To any passing observers, the two would be assumed to be there to protect the President. If anyone came too close, they directed them to move away. A little after 11:00, Wallace entered the depository, rode up to the sixth floor and rearranged some boxes with Oswald. He left the print on the box on which he sat.

All of this is reported in McClellan's book, Blood, Money & Power. I have read many articles and books on Kennedy and his assassination. This one book answered a lot of questions, and it was also part of the basis of the show on the History Channel about President Kennedy's assassination that outraged the Johnson family.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #149)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:11 AM

150. It's speculation reported as fact. If you want to complain about the general atmosphere in Texas

in the mid-20th century, it's fine with me: I always considered the culture there corrupt

Could Mac Wallace have been murdered in 1971? Sure, it's a possibility: he may have run with a rough crowd, something I think was common for many Texans of his generation. Cover-ups weren't uncommon IMO. But the mere fact, that I could believe it, doesn't mean that's actually what happened -- and it seems to have no obvious connection to the JFK assassination

You, or McClellan, or whoever can (for example) assert Wallace parked behind the depository and stood with a man named Yates who had false Secret Service credentials and that after 11:00, Wallace entered the depository, rode up to the sixth floor and rearranged some boxes with Oswald. But making assertions as if they were facts, without evidence, doesn't turn those assertions into facts, no matter how much I may dislike what I learn about Wallace.

As I pointed out upthread, Wallace moved to Anaheim in 1961. To have him hanging around the book depository on 22 November 1963, you first need to get him from Anaheim to Dallas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:30 AM

66. Actually, five separate government investigations came to the same conclusion as the WC.

That Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

That includes the HSCA, the FBI, the Ramsey Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and, of course, the WC.

The HSCA believed that there was another shooter, but they based that conclusion on bogus evidence that has since been utterly falsified by scientific research.

Like yourself, the majority of Americans don't know that. How else to explain your believing that only the WC determined that Oswald alone killed JFK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #66)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:57 AM

69. 5 seperate investigations?

They all came to the same conclusion that Oswald acted alone?

All the more reason not to believe that crock of you know what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #69)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:04 AM

71. So I stood up and told that teachin' lady...

http://weheartit.com/entry/60262792

The only three letters I need to know are U, S and A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #69)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:06 AM

72. They were all based on the evidence.

Of course, you wouldn't even know about there being 5 investigations had I not just told you.

Sadly, there's not a pubic hair's chance that you possess the intellectual curiosity to take a look at those various investigations. Much easier to sit back in your couch potato-ish beliefs in conspiracies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #72)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:09 AM

73. There sure seem to be a lot of people . . .

on here desperate to have everyone buy into the lone gun nut theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #73)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:13 AM

74. Maybe some of them have been paid, not me though, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #73)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:13 AM

75. That's because before the JFK assassination...

This type of fear, distrust and paranoia of the government was restricted to conservative ideologies. Now, it has spread like a contagion among liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #73)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:14 AM

76. Not me. I don't care what you believe. I'm not here to get anyone to buy into anything.

Compare that to Octafish and the other major DU JFK CTists whose life mission seems to be convincing others that Oswald didn't do it/didn't act alone.

However, I'm not going to let lies and stupidities go unchallenged, whether the subject is RW economic policies or bullshit CTs.

Personally, I find it much more desperate - perhaps pathetic is a better word - when people refuse to read up on the actual evidence in the case, preferring to be led around by the nose by some CTist who has no qualms about distorting and outright lying about the evidence in the case.

As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #76)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:35 AM

81. We'll agree to disagree. Please continue with the buy-in campaign. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #81)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:49 AM

84. You are not disagreeing with people.

You are disagreeing with science and facts that overwhelmingly point at LHO as the lone shooter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:51 AM

89. Wonder what the Kennedy family thinks about your position? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #84)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:06 AM

152. Try this link . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #152)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:37 AM

154. Interesting, yes.

But I have to go, a big black car keeps circling the block.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #81)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:51 AM

85. Enjoy your ignorance-is-bliss non-review of the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #85)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:52 AM

90. Wonder what the Kennedy family thinks about your position? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #90)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:25 PM

116. Depends which generation of Kennedys you ask.

In 1968, RFK was appearing at what is now Cal State Northridge, where he was asked if he would reopen the investigation into his brother's murder. His reply was that he had seen everything in the archives, that he stood by the WCR, and that if elected, he would NOT be reopening the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #116)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:31 PM

135. His son has recently expressed doubt about the lone shooter theory. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #135)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:40 PM

136. That would be RFK Jr, the zealous spokesman for the "vaccines cause autism" claque,

the guy whose Salon & Rolling Stone articles averring there was US government conspiracy to cover up data linking vaccines to autism were retracted by those publishers for gross factual errors, the guy who kept a diary of his sexual exploits during his second marriage, and which diary contributed to his second wife, Mary, committing suicide by hanging during their contentious divorce proceedings, correct? That RFK Jr?

Witnesses are successfully impeached in our nation's courts every day of the week as being unreliable on much slimmer evidence than that which surrounds Jr...and I didn't even mention his arrest for heroin possession.

I'll take the words of his father over Jr's word any day of the week, especially as Jr was only 14 years old at the time of his father's murder and who didn't possess the maturity to interpret anything his father said to him about JFK's murder, and who is even less of a position to interpret those things 46 years after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #136)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 04:59 PM

138. Don't think he's the only in the family . . .

and certainly not the only one in the country, where a majority don't buy the lone gunman theory.

Just to neat and tidy a conclusion to come to in an untidy and complicated and set of circumstances.

Keep on believing what you believe though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #138)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:56 PM

139. You cited him as a source, not me, so why go off on the "family' tangent?

Some of them may be more credible than Jr. My post didn't address them, and your post certainly didn't regurgitate the "most Americans believe" meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 07:28 PM

141. I cited the family first . . . oh, never mind. Seems we're both talking to our respective choir.

I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. So be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #136)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 07:29 PM

142. Shame On You !!!

 

If your father and uncle had been publicly slain if front of a national audience, I would not begrudge you heroin or extra-marital affairs.

Judge not... lest ye be judged.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #142)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:14 PM

143. Thanks for the humor. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #143)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:19 PM

144. Yeah... You're One Funny...

 

Nevermind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #85)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:05 AM

151. Try this link . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #73)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:29 AM

98. Desperation is the right word.

 

They get so mad if you don't agree with them, it is funny to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:18 AM

77. Jack Ruby's statements before and after killing Oswald disprove your claim

that he was no fan of JFK.

I have no idea what you found on Google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:36 PM

9. Says the poster with the most threads on the subject. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:47 PM

11. I think it's the other way around when it comes to being vocal and sensitive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:58 PM

14. My problem with the whole thing is they locked up everything for 75 years. That tells me

there's something they don't want the people to see that was uncovered in the investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:04 PM

15. People keep saying this and it is not true. Please inform yourself and stop spreading misinformation

"In November 1964, two months after the publication of its 889-page report, the Commission published twenty-six volumes of supporting documents, including the testimony or depositions of 552 witnesses and more than 3,100 exhibits. All of the commission's records were then transferred on November 23 to the National Archives. The unpublished portion of those records was initially sealed for 75 years (to 2039) under a general National Archives policy that applied to all federal investigations by the executive branch of government, a period "intended to serve as protection for innocent persons who could otherwise be damaged because of their relationship with participants in the case.” The 75-year rule no longer exists, supplanted by the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and the JFK Records Act of 1992. By 1992, 98 percent of the Warren Commission records had been released to the public. Six years later, at the conclusion of the Assassination Records Review Board's work, all Warren Commission records, except those records that contained tax return information, were available to the public with redactions. The remaining Kennedy assassination related documents are scheduled to be released to the public by 2017, twenty-five years after the passage of the JFK Records Act."

Wikipedia

The marijuana gives you man boobs thread is that way. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024085201

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WillyT (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:35 PM

21. Mmm...spread thin...like the glaze on a Krispy Kreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:26 PM

19. Another "fact" that is repeated but in fact has no basis.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:51 AM

158. I remember when they did it. That's exactly how it was presented and stuff is still

under lock and key

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #158)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 04:48 AM

163. What you remember is somebody saying that, but it was never true.


After they finished with the Commission all of the material was sent to the National Archives. The National Archives at the time had a 75 year statutory rule on records related to criminal cases to protect potential innocent witnesses. All of that was replaced by the Freedom of Information Act and the JFK Records Act of 1992. There was never any action specifically aimed at Warren Commission material to keep it for "75 years", just the regulations that applied to all National Archive material, and that was changed a few years later, but hey why let a fact influence your opinion. When this myth is put to sleep you will find another to hang your hat on.

From reply # 15 above



"In November 1964, two months after the publication of its 889-page report, the Commission published twenty-six volumes of supporting documents, including the testimony or depositions of 552 witnesses and more than 3,100 exhibits. All of the commission's records were then transferred on November 23 to the National Archives. The unpublished portion of those records was initially sealed for 75 years (to 2039) under a general National Archives policy that applied to all federal investigations by the executive branch of government, a period "intended to serve as protection for innocent persons who could otherwise be damaged because of their relationship with participants in the case.� The 75-year rule no longer exists, supplanted by the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and the JFK Records Act of 1992. By 1992, 98 percent of the Warren Commission records had been released to the public. Six years later, at the conclusion of the Assassination Records Review Board's work, all Warren Commission records, except those records that contained tax return information, were available to the public with redactions. The remaining Kennedy assassination related documents are scheduled to be released to the public by 2017, twenty-five years after the passage of the JFK Records Act."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:27 AM

79. Yup, strange that the ol' U.S. guvimment had to lock it up for so damned long.

Like they hoped that we wouldn't still be hanging around 75 years later.

It's pretty much the same damned way the guvimment wanted everyone to accept their reasons for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as the absolute gospel truth.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:25 PM

18. You are aware that most people who have looked at the scientific

evidence and Bugliosi's work didn't bother to wade through all of the threads and click on polls of the issue.

Some of us prefer to spend time honoring JFK than devote more time on the despicable Oswald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:43 PM

22. Seriously ??? - "Bugliosi's Work" ???

 



Thanks...I needed that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:54 PM

23. Even if you mocked him like that a hundred thousand times

It would not be equal to the mocking he threw on CT'ers with that book. So I am not sure why you are laughing. Ignorance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:30 AM

80. Unless you can honestly tell us that you yourself have read Bugliosi's book,

I don't see how anyone can take YOU seriously.

One would like to believe that decent people don't ridicule books they haven't even bothered to read for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:44 PM

29. What I find interesting is that they will not acknowledge the possibility that others helped Oswald

kill Kennedy. There was no chance that anyone helped LHO? Really? Don't bother responding to me if you feel that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:57 PM

36. Yes, it's possible. But zero evidence has been found to suggest that.

Which puts it in the realm of baseless speculation. Particularly since he didn't need any help. It wasn't really a very complicated operation. Bring gun to work. Shoot Kennedy from window.

Now, what's not possible is that someone other than Oswald shot JFK, something that conspiracy theorists can't bring themselves to acknowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:04 AM

39. IT'S POSSIBLE

Yes it is and thank you very much for giving more ground that the rest of the condescending lot of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:05 AM

40. OK, now your turn.

Do you acknowledge that it is not possible for anyone other than Oswald to have shot JFK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:10 AM

42. I believe that it is likely that LHO shot Kennedy,

and that nobody else shot him. I also believe that it is likely that he had help and didn't just show up for work with a gun as you describe. Is it possible that that is exactly what happened? Yes

I just find it interesting that there are people who will not acknowledge the possibility that he had help. Not only do they not acknowledge that possibility, they ridicule others that hold this very reasonable position. Perhaps we have found common ground?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #42)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:21 AM

48. It is extremely unlikely that Oswald had help.

Not only is there zero evidence to support this claim, but there are very compelling reasons to believe that he did not have help. For example, if he had help, he probably wouldn't have been using a cheap 12 dollar rifle. Also, there's the fact that he got the job at the TSBD before the motorcade route in Dallas was determined, so that couldn't possibly have been part of a plan. The fact that Oswald was an unreliable and unstable person, who nobody would want to use to carry out an operation this important. The fact that he had no apparent getaway plan -- since when to professional hit men get away by taking a public bus. If he had help, the least his helpers could have done is had a car waiting for him. And despite extensive investigations, no link to any substantial organization that might have wanted to kill JFK was ever discovered.

Nevertheless, yes, it is possible.

Most of the ridicule you talk about is directed towards people who believe that Oswald was not the actual shooter, or that there was a second shooter. Very few conspiracy theorists acknowledge that the forensic evidence conclusively rules this out. And it is to their detriment, because as you point out, there could still be a conspiracy even if Oswald was the only shooter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:29 AM

51. Yes, it is possible.

It is possible and you don't really know and I don't really know. At least we treat each other with respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #51)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:44 AM

55. Since we're treating each other with respect...

Here's the only kind of "conspiracy" theory that I think is plausible. Some pro-Castro people that Oswald associated with recognized that he was an unstable person with delusions of grandeur, and that he might just be nuts enough to take a shot at the president. And knowing this, they talked about how great it would be if JFK were killed in his presence, hoping that maybe he would decide to actually do it.

But that's it. No logistical support at all -- if they had provided him with any actual support, the first thing they would have done is given him enough money to buy a decent rifle, and the second thing they would have done is either had a getaway car, or else killed him immediately after the JFK shooting (the idea that anyone would pass up the opportunity to kill Oswald while he was wandering the streets, but then send Jack Ruby to shoot him on live TV in a room full of cops is absurd).

Even this kind of minor "conspiracy by suggestion" is pretty unlikely, and there's no evidence to support it, so it's just speculation. In the end, the lone nut gunman theory fits the evidence far better than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #55)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:39 AM

88. Whenever I've thought about the afterlife, the first thing I always think of is learning what really

happened that day in Dallas. (and to be fair there is a chance that LHO acted alone is what I will find out)

It's like a puzzle with all of the pieces strewn about a large table. Sure it's easy to see once it's all put together but at the time there is no seeing how it will come together.

All of the players and all of the evidence are pieces of the puzzle but nobody has put it together correctly, least of all the WC.

I don't have a plausible theory about who helped LHO or why. I just look at all of these individual pieces- like LHO going in and out of the USSR- and to me they don't fit LHO acting completely alone.

Nobody has seen the complete puzzle and therefore nobody knows what really happened. My only point is that some of the pieces seem awful fishy and it is completely reasonable to think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:13 AM

43. Conspiracy theorists rarely ask good questions.

The Conspiracy Theory Industry produces products and ideas that end up distracting from authentic questions, so blame "them".

Btw, do you happen to have any evidence that someone has actually uttered the words "there was no chance that anyone helped LHO"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greyl (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:20 AM

47. Responding indicates that you believe there is a chance that LHO

had help killing JFK. Again, that is more that most on your side are willing to concede. I don't think we are far off after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #47)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:36 AM

82. There's no evidence LHO had help in the way I think you mean,

but I don't see how it can be totally ruled out.

To repeat my question, do you happen to have any evidence that someone has actually uttered the words "there was no chance that anyone helped LHO"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greyl (Reply #82)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:28 AM

86. I have one point and one point only and that is that it is VERY reasonable to believe that LHO

had help in killing JFK. I also find it reasonable to believe that LHO acted completely on his own, though I feel that is unlikely.

While I could not find the exact words you seek, I feel that directing ROFL smileys at those who believe that LHO had help is the same thing as saying 'there was no chance.' I'm sure you can locate some of those without my assistance.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:05 AM

157. That indicates it was an example of dishonest argumentation from a conspiracy theory fan, right?

That's glaringly common, unfortunately.

To your one point, I don't think it's reasonable to believe something without evidence. In the realm of what's possible, there is a spectrum between highly unlikely & highly likely. Devoted Conspiracy Theory Industry Consumers tend to focus on pet theories or clusters of nondescript Sinister Insinuations that they believe are highly likely, but the measure most important to them seems always to be whether they want to believe it, not what the evidence adds up to.

What evidence makes you so certain that LHO had help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greyl (Reply #157)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 01:09 AM

159. 'What evidence makes you so certain that LHO had help?'

While I am not certain that LHO had help, I believe that it is likely that he did. The evidence to me is cloudy and certainly does not rule out the possibility that LHO had help. The effort to make people believe that this case is closed has seemed pushy to me. Not the tactic of the right side IMO. We have an event that no one really knows the truth about, therefore those who continue to seek the truth rather than claiming to have found it are correct.

I would say that had LHO not gone in and out of the USSR so easily, it would probably push me more into the 'LHO acted alone' camp. Of course everyone wanted him dead, of course the CIA has a lot of capabilities...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:27 AM

78. In a very real way, JFK helped Oswald kill JFK.

By preferring that the SS not ride on his open limo, by insisting that the hard top (NOT the plastic bubble top) be taken off the limo for the motorcade through Dallas, and for having either a feeling of being indestructible OR a belief that fate is what it is that led him to openly joke about being assassinated the day before he was killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jetboy (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:58 AM

94. They can't. As soon as you entertain that possibility, the whole Warren Theory crashes down.

 

They painted themselves into a tiny corner where the only way that Warren theory can hold up is if one believes a whole chain of truly fantastic things, any one of which blows the Warren theory out of the water. And so they resort to insults and ridicule while huddling in that little corner.

There are too many incredible (meaning "not credible" claims for that theory to be believed by any reasonable person. Any one of these points being wrong blows the Warren theory completely out of the water:

1) No Motive. Oswald had no profile of a lone nut. His background was very, very interesting, but not that of a deranged killer. And there was no evidence that he had any hatred of Kennedy or any other motive. Oswald evidently made no attempt to cover his tracks and made no escape plans. But he didn't give himself up either.

2) Impossible timing of shots. The timing of the shots is way beyond improbable. In the Warren Commission 3-shot theory, we are asked to believe that the first shot was a miss (no problem there.) The next shot was about 4 seconds later. (No problem there.) That second shot entered JFK's back from the rear. (That's a problem considering how low Kennedy was in the car, but OK.) And finally the killing shot was only about 1 second after the second shot. That one is completely impossible. Has there ever been any test by any marksman using that weapon that proved it possible to execute two direct hits at that distance on a moving target when there is only one second between shots to reset and re-aim? There is a lot of argument about whether the TOTAL duration was 5 seconds or 8 seconds. That completely misses the point. Under the Warren theory, the two hits had to happen within about a second of each other. Show me the tests where the average marksman of Oswald's training and skill can do that using that weapon.

3) The Magic bullet. The whole magic bullet thing is beyond any plausibility and I won't regurgitate that. The theory about its trajectory is bad enough, but then we are expected to believe that this same charmed bullet ended up at Parkview in an unused gurney, fully intact. It just fell out of Connally's body and jumped into the gurney, even though significant fragments of what was supposed to be the same bullet still remained inside Connally. This bullet passed through Kennedy's back, out his shoulder, ricocheted off bones, fracturing some of them and yet was fully intact, and just happened to be lying there on the gurney. No. I don't think so. This strains the imagination of any reasonable person. And combined with all the other problems of the Warren theory, no reasonable person can accept that as presented.

There are lots of other questions that the Warren authoritarians scream and shout about, and any of them would blow the Warren theory out of the water. But the above three are huge and have never been answered adequately. No reasonable person could conclude that the Warren theory is correct beyond a reasonable doubt -- much less the 100% certainty that some folks claim here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #94)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:37 AM

100. Specific to point 2

 

He is a sample of the the kind of garbage used to try to justify the Warren theory.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

Pleas note that this test included expert marksmen. They used stationary targets, which is obviously easier then hitting moving targets. And the test allowed them to practice and decide when they were ready to start the shooting sequence -- a luxury that Oswald did not have. And there were no obstacles obscuring the view, as Oswald had to contend with.

Despite all of these advantages, not a single one of the expert marksmen was able to execute two hits within the 1.66 seconds they used as the time between the second and third shots -- i.e. the two hits that Oswald supposedly accomplished.

As far s I know, there has never been ANY demonstration of any marksman using a realistic recreation of the conditions, scoring two hits within the 1.66 seconds.

Talk about magic bullets. Oswald must have been using a magic rifle that day.

Either show a test that proves Oswald's act had a reasonable probability or else STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:45 AM

102. Here, then.

Moving target. From the same elevation as the 6th floor window. Target at the same distance as the limo, moving at the same speed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #102)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:12 PM

111. In other words. NONE of them was successful

 

Only one guy got off shots as fast as the 1.66 seconds between Oswald supposed 2nd and 3rd shots, both of which were hits under the Warren theory. Only one tester executed shots under 1.66 seconds, but he only got 1 out of 3 hits.

And this is with the advantages of :

1) Being about to get a redo if the gun jammed, which it did about half the time

2) The ability to prepare and start the procedure on their own time line, which is a lot easier than a guy sitting in wait for his one instant when the target appears in front of him. And remember, under the Warren theory, Oswald acted alone, so he had no means of knowing exactly where the limo was before it appeared.

3) And there were no trees in the way, blocking the vision. These testers had a completely unobstructed view.

See why there is a problem? Under the best of circumstances, nobody could do what the Warren theory says Oswald did. Not a single one.

I will give them credit. At least they did do a moving target. To make it a more realistic test, it should have had these conditions:

1) The course should have had trees partially blocking the view.

2) The shooters should not have any advance warning of when the target would appear.

3) There should be multiple targets. it was a parade after all, The shooter had to figure out WHICH target to shoot at very quickly.

In such a realistic test with no opportunity to practice on the test course ahead of time, I submit less than one in 500 expert marksmen would be able to do what Oswald supposedly did with 1.66 seconds between shots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #114)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:30 PM

118. That is the time between the second and third shot

 

both of which were hits according to the Warren theory.

And please note that the 2nd and 3rd shots were the most distant from the target. According to the Warren theory, Oswald pulled off two shots in rapid succession (1.66 seconds). after his miss, which was about 4 seconds earlier. The second shot was the so-called "magic bullet" that hit both Kennedy and Connally. The third shot, 1.66 seconds later was a direct head shot.

Nobody in the CBS test scored hits on the second and third shots anywhere close to the time that Oswald supposedly achieved.

You guys need to quit moving the goal posts. You have a theory and I simply asked for any demonstration that the most fantastic of the claims could actually be replicated in a realistic test. And you answered that. It can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #118)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:40 PM

123. No it wasn't?

If the second and third shots were both hits then there was clearly more than 1.66 seconds between them. This is quite evident because we have a film that shows the elapsed time between the two hits. The first hit at no later than frame 224 and the second hit at frame 313. 313=224=89. Zapruder's camera ran at a film speed of approxmately 18 frames per second. 89/18=4.9. Not 1.66. This is a claim easily refuted by reference to available evidence and to the actual findings of the Warren Commission, and the HSCA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #123)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:26 PM

133. There shouldn't be any controversy about the timing.

 

Are there no audio files recorded during the event? It should not take extensive laboratory analysis to determine how rapidly shots were heard. that day.

In any case, none of the people in the CBS tests achieves the hits attributed to Oswald even assuming 2 seconds between shots and they had lots of advantages Oswald did not have.

This is a central claim of the Warren Commission. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Yeah, I know every gun owner thinks they can hit a pimple on a flea's butt at 200 yards with their eyes closed. But pardon me if I ask for some proof of that.

Why is it too much to ask for a demonstration that shows that marksmen of Oswald's skill level can, on their first try without any practice, achieve two of three hits on a moving target with the visual obstructions that were in place in Dealy Plaza with no warning when the target will appear?

The testing that has taken place, to my knowledge, shows at best that this MAY be THEORETICALLY possible in the very best of circumstances, but is extremely unlikely if not downright impossible. You combine that with the lack of motive and all the other legitimate questions, and it becomes clear that the Warren Theory is among the least plausible of scenarios. But it was the outcome Alan Dulles, LBJ, and J Edgar Hoover wanted to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #133)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:29 PM

134. There is no controversy about the timing.

You're making an assertion that's totally contradicted by evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #118)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:02 PM

130. 1.66 seconds! LOL!

The time difference between the two hits was at the very least 4.5 seconds. Here is frame Z232, at which point JFK has obviously already been hit, since he is grabbing his throat:



Here is Z313, the head shot.


So, at absolute minimum we have 81 Z frames between the last two shots. At 18 frames per second, that's at least 81/18 = 4.5 seconds.

I'm am truly curious about what you're going to come up with next!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #94)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:44 AM

101. Really?

So Oswald took a shot at Edwin Walker and "had no profile of a lone nut"? Really? The evidence all says he did it. Motive is an irrelevancy. We can speculate on his motive; his wife testified to the Warren Commission and the HSCA of his antipathy to John Connally (because Connally was the Secretary of the Navy who refused to upgrade Oswald's Marine Corps discharge to honorable); Oswald was pro-Castro and JFK was anti-Castro. Claiming he had no possible motive when multiple possible motives are suggested from the evidence is absurd.

And the timing of the shots is not only not impossible, it's quite possible and has been recreated by marksmen firing identical rifles at identical distances from the same elevation at a moving target.



Here's someone with an identical rifle who fires SIX shots in 5.1 seconds:



The timing of the shots is quite possible and you can't say that there was only one second between the second and third shot; if the shots that struck were the second and third then there's 5 seconds between them.


Magic bullet, not magic, not beyond any plausibility. Connally? Sitting six inches below and three inches inboard of Kennedy and turned to his extreme right when the shot struck. The trajectory of the bullet that entered Kennedy's upper back and exited his throat lines up with the entry wound on Connally. This has been established from photographic analysis and computer modelling. Claiming it's impossible is ignoring the evidence.



The fragments? not "significant"; the total weight can't be known but from the size and number of the fragments and the known weight of the fragments recovered the estimated total loss of weight from the bullet is in the vicinity of 2-4 grains of lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #94)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:24 PM

132. as to "moving target"


The phrase "moving target" often comes up in these discussions.

From the perspective of the sixth floor window, JFK's head is a "moving target" only in the sense that it is a receding target. The way the street bends, it lines up with the window in such a way that while the phrase "moving target" suggests one that is moving laterally, and thus requires a leading aim, the "motion" in question here is more or less in a straight line receding away from the shooter.

It would have been different if he had attempted to fire when the limo turned the corner - in which case, yes, the target is moving laterally relative to the shooter. But he didn't take that closer shot when the limo turned the corner, since it was - at that time - a laterally moving target. Once the limo had completed the turn, then he only had the drop to worry about, and not lateral motion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:07 AM

41. LOL! So you are saying we are like most Americans?

 

That won't go over well with some...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:16 AM

44. Same reason the same people were apoplectic about Snowden. They are authoritarians.

 

They trust the honesty of the state -- especially the darkest portions of the state -- a lot more than I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:17 AM

45. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:27 AM

50. Jeezus people! We are through the looking glass here!

The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.[1]

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman — sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed, he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often, the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).[1]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics

WAKE UP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #50)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:39 AM

53. As I was saying, authoritarians. Attack anybody who questions authority.

 

"Citizen, you should think very carefully before you ask questions like this. Some people may think you are paranoid. You might be committed to a mental institution -- or worse. Take the advice of a friend -- stop asking these questions. it is for your own good, friend."

Yeah. We get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:44 AM

54. No.

You do not.



ETA Willful ignorance of the facts is not the same thing as questioning authority. It's the paranoid style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:17 AM

60. You've got that backwards.

The CTers insist that simply because an authority says something, it must be false. There is no logic-based reason to believe that anyone other than Oswald shot JFK. The evidence is extremely strong. The reason that the reality-based community is convinced of Oswald's guilt is not "because the Warren Commission says so", but rather because the evidence implies it far beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, when CTers are asked to defend their position, they don't point to evidence, but rather repeat some nonsense about authoritarianism. It is clear from your posts, for example, that you actually know very little about the evidence in the JFK case (for example, you didn't know about the bullet fragments in JFK's car that were matched to Oswald's rifle, nor the fact that the so-called "magic" bullet lost more than enough weight to account for the lead in Connelly's arm). And yet ignorance of basic facts like these doesn't prevent you from having a strong opinion.

If you don't believe anything the government says, you also don't believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and you certainly don't believe the conclusion of the UN's panel of climate scientists on global warming.

But if you let the facts speak for themselves, then there really isn't much controversy on any of these questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:27 AM

97. Most of this BS is not "questioning" anything.

It is proclaiming, with little or no hint of entertaining anything but a conspiratorial, paranoid style of thinking.

I have no problem whatsoever with actual questioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:01 PM

129. Not really, no, it's more like this:

Conspiracy theorist makes flat assertion of easily debunked and 100% false "fact". Whines about being attacked when someone who's familiar with the evidence says "well, no, that's not actually true".

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. But wilful ignorance of verifiable facts and actual evidence is something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:36 PM

137. Exactly! The very reason the DU forum was started for!

Most of them don't ever question authority on any level, they just act like robots and do whatever they are told to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #137)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:57 PM

147. It makes me wonder why they are here at all

 

I bet if one took the time to research their posts about Snowden, one would find the Warren Conspiracy Theorists were all in the heavily authoritarian camp with regard to the NSA, the "Patriot Act", and the erosion of our Constitutional protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:18 AM

46. Evidence

I love how the Oswald did it alone types talk about looking at evidence. Of course the question is what evidence and how selective that is. Pretty selective in their cases.

I've seen a deaf man describe what he saw that day behind the grassy knoll - a man breaking down what seemed like a gun, putting it in a case, then getting into a waiting car and off they went. His daughter relayed that to the police and they blew it off - apparently not the kind of evidence they needed to fit the narrative.

There was a Mr. and Mrs. Newman across the street and near the presidents car when his head got blown off - he's about as sure he can be that the kill shot came from the knoll. He never was contacted after initially telling what he saw/heard.

The 3 hobos that were back there and questioned - one sure looked like Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt, and they were dressed too nice and too clean. Hunt confessed on his deathbed that he was a low level backup type in this hit, which he says was termed the "Big Event". Hunt was in the CIA and it sure looks like Oswald was a low level CIA asset as well. So this is more complicated than some think.

I know the right acquires operatives to dispute liberal claims on message boards, maybe Posner or somebody is recruiting people to diss anyone not buying into the Oswald lone nut meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:24 AM

49. What about this evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:38 AM

87. "I know the right acquires operatives to dispute liberal claims on message boards..."

Bypassing the "acquires operatives" bullshit, what exactly is liberal about JFK conspiracy theories?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:55 AM

104. Let's pick one of those - "the three tramps"


Just how much digging have you done on them?



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #104)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:02 PM

107. Charles Harrelson,

Woody's (Cheers) Dad, claimed to be of the the tramps. He also claimed to have shot JFK, and someone else on that day.

I don't remember much more of that story. Even this was a very long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #107)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:04 PM

109. The Dallas police records identified all three

They had spent the previous night at a charity bunkhouse and were on their way out of town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:19 AM

62. A majority of Americans believed Saddam had WMD.

A majority of Americans believe in invisible supernatural beings and an afterlife.

There's no objective evidence to prove any of the above.

Your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #62)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:31 AM

99. Actually that was polled republicans that believed in WMD.

 

Funny that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #99)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:03 PM

108. A Harris Poll taken in Nov 2004 found that 90% of Americans

believed Saddam would have made WMD if he could have, while 38% of Americans believed SH had WMDs when the US invaded.

Many Ds were taken in by the lying of the Bush administration. It wasn't just Rs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #108)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:09 PM

110. Funny cannot find that poll in their vault.

 

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Insights/HarrisVault.aspx

Probably just not looking in the right place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #110)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:17 PM

112. Probably right. Try searching on "Harris Poll Nov 2004 Saddam." You'll probably

get lots of hits on contemporaneous news articles that cite the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #112)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:23 PM

115. The vault might be limited, it is not in there.

 

Tried google, nothing there either from Nov 2004. Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to stopbush (Reply #117)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:32 PM

119. 'Would have made WMD' and 'believed he had WMD' are two different things completely.

 

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #119)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:45 PM

125. Correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:02 AM

70. I do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:54 AM

103. A majority of Americans also believe ghosts, God, Jesus, and angels are real.

 

Not to mention Creationism. It doesn't make them right. Facts and evidence aren't determined by popular opinion....just ask the Flat-Earthers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #103)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:57 AM

105. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #103)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:35 PM

145. Yeah... I Know... How Stupid ARE Those People ???

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #103)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 02:46 AM

162. Unicorns, aliens... I know a Republican

that truly doesn't know that stuff is fantasy.

If the TV says it enough times, it's true...
or it isn't true if the TV propagandists don't want us to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:49 PM

146. Gatekeepers, Hall Monitors, Know-it-alls...

Fuck em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread