French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
I want to know who really murdered Teddy Kennedy.
I want to know who really murdered Teddy Kennedy.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
- Thread starter Old Pio
- Start date
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
Bushes' fault
Bushes' fault
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
The "government" is making exactly zero effort to convince you. The reality is the opposite of that. The Warren Commission studied the events, issued a report and went out of business. All of its members are now dead. There is no Warren Commission office. No Warren Commission PR people. No Warren Commission press releases. Conspiracists, on the other hand, grow like that stuff that comes out of the cracks of your driveway. And they've been writing and rewriting "history" every since. Some of them even make movies. I find it interesting that only two writers of any prominence have tackled this subject, and both concluded LHO did it and there was no conspiracy. As I mentioned initially, in the 50 years since JFK's murder, the only consensus offered by conspiracists is that Oswald didn't do it. Doesn't it strike you as strange that in half a century they haven't come any closer to coming up with a unified version of what they claim happened than the nonsense they started peddling in 1963?
In recent years the documentaries have tended to support the official version of the event. At least to the extent that they demolish conspiracists' pet theories. There was one on PBS Wednesday night showing that the "magic bullet" could easily have done what was claimed, without any significant damage to the round. Common statements of "fact" from conspiracists: "Oswald didn't have time to make it down the stairs to the lunchroom where he was questioned briefly by a cop." Shown to be absolute nonsense. "Oswald couldn't have made it from his rooming house to where he killed Officer Tippet." Also absolute nonsense. Those walks were recreated and timed for one documentary and they were well within his capabilities. "Oswald was a bad shot" Tripe. "That picture of Oswald with the rifle, pistol and Daily Worker was a photo montage " (an idea featured prominently in JFK). The photography panel of the House Assassinations Committee established that: the photo was not a montage, that it had been taken by Marina's camera (to the exclusion of all other cameras, similar to ballistics) and that Oswald had given an autographed copy of one of the several shots taken in that session to his friend George de Mohrenshildt. If this picture was created to implicate Oswald in a killing of which he was innocent, it seems rather unlikely the CIA (or whoever) would be so careless as to let him get his hands on a copy in advance of the killing. He gave the autographed photo to his friend because he was proud of it and himself.
LOL, that nonsense about Tippet's shooter being heavy set is straight out of JFK, and Oliver Stone, notwithstanding his 50 million dollar budget, is not a reliable source. Oswald was positively identified by 7 or 8 witnesses in lineups that night as the man who shot Tippet. And his pistol was similarly identified as the gun used to kill the officer. Perhaps the most unintentionally funny line in film history occurs in JFK when Donald Sutherland (playing Fletcher Prouty) says to Kevin Costner: (paraphrasing) "I could give you a phony name, but I won't. Just call me Mr. X."
The various Warren Commission exhibits are held at the National Archives. Don't know it citizens are allowed to view them. I don't follow your reference to "moving streetlights." So far as I know, none were moved, nor was it necessary to do so to establish the path of Oswald's bullets.
There have been two serious books that support the "official" view written: Gerald Posner's Case Closed and Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. They really provide balance to the decades of nonsense from so-called researchers. Bugliosi's book is massive. 1500 pages. Footnotes on DVD. It's expensive and a long read but worth it. He answers all the questions.
As I've said, with respect, your self-confessed ignorance as to what happeed, and your suspicions about the validity of the "official" version aren't evidence. But if you haven't read anything that supports the "official" version, you're doing yourself a disservice. When Posner undertook writing Case Closed he discovered there was no reliable index of the 26 volumes of Warren Commission research. The official 800 page summary was indexed, but not the 26 volumes. The only index available had been created by an early conspiracist named Sylvia Meagher, and her index reflected her biases. Subsequent conspiracists used her flawed index to go down the same rabbit holes. So Posner had to start by creating a new index.
One thing conspiracists do repeatedly is simply to ignore evidence which doesn't support their theories. For instance, the 3 SBD employees who were watching the motorcade on the 5th floor, directly below Oswald. They all described hearing three shots, a rifle cycling and shells hitting the floor. There's photographic proof they were there. Their accuracy and veracity has never been challenged. But conspiracists studiously ignore mentioning them. Just as they do the eye witnesses who saw Oswald firing out of that window. Conspiracists love to make a big point of asking "how did Dallas PD get a description of Oswald on the radio so quickly?" Answer: Howard Brennan and a teenager named Amos Euins told the cops they'd seen a guy shooting out of that window and offered a general description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwH_5umBZM
Please pay no attention to Jim Garrison or JFK or Oliver Stone (I fear it may be too late). Although I liked the movie, it's a tissue of lies, misinformation, exaggerations, half truths and rumors all stitched together by a first rate polemicist. Garrison was completely in the pocket of New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello. In his two terms as DA, Garrison brought not a single organized crime case. Not one. In the movie, Kevin Costner makes the impassioned closing argument for the state. In truth, Garrison wasn't there. And the jury took just a few minutes to find Clay Shaw not guilty.
So there's plenty of information out there that will put that sad event in context. But relying on suspicion, skepticism, surmise and speculation (none of which is evidence) will leave you wondering, where none is appropriate. You may not be convinced. But you might be enlightened just a bit.
The "government" is making exactly zero effort to convince you. The reality is the opposite of that. The Warren Commission studied the events, issued a report and went out of business. All of its members are now dead. There is no Warren Commission office. No Warren Commission PR people. No Warren Commission press releases. Conspiracists, on the other hand, grow like that stuff that comes out of the cracks of your driveway. And they've been writing and rewriting "history" every since. Some of them even make movies. I find it interesting that only two writers of any prominence have tackled this subject, and both concluded LHO did it and there was no conspiracy. As I mentioned initially, in the 50 years since JFK's murder, the only consensus offered by conspiracists is that Oswald didn't do it. Doesn't it strike you as strange that in half a century they haven't come any closer to coming up with a unified version of what they claim happened than the nonsense they started peddling in 1963?
In recent years the documentaries have tended to support the official version of the event. At least to the extent that they demolish conspiracists' pet theories. There was one on PBS Wednesday night showing that the "magic bullet" could easily have done what was claimed, without any significant damage to the round. Common statements of "fact" from conspiracists: "Oswald didn't have time to make it down the stairs to the lunchroom where he was questioned briefly by a cop." Shown to be absolute nonsense. "Oswald couldn't have made it from his rooming house to where he killed Officer Tippet." Also absolute nonsense. Those walks were recreated and timed for one documentary and they were well within his capabilities. "Oswald was a bad shot" Tripe. "That picture of Oswald with the rifle, pistol and Daily Worker was a photo montage " (an idea featured prominently in JFK). The photography panel of the House Assassinations Committee established that: the photo was not a montage, that it had been taken by Marina's camera (to the exclusion of all other cameras, similar to ballistics) and that Oswald had given an autographed copy of one of the several shots taken in that session to his friend George de Mohrenshildt. If this picture was created to implicate Oswald in a killing of which he was innocent, it seems rather unlikely the CIA (or whoever) would be so careless as to let him get his hands on a copy in advance of the killing. He gave the autographed photo to his friend because he was proud of it and himself.
LOL, that nonsense about Tippet's shooter being heavy set is straight out of JFK, and Oliver Stone, notwithstanding his 50 million dollar budget, is not a reliable source. Oswald was positively identified by 7 or 8 witnesses in lineups that night as the man who shot Tippet. And his pistol was similarly identified as the gun used to kill the officer. Perhaps the most unintentionally funny line in film history occurs in JFK when Donald Sutherland (playing Fletcher Prouty) says to Kevin Costner: (paraphrasing) "I could give you a phony name, but I won't. Just call me Mr. X."
The various Warren Commission exhibits are held at the National Archives. Don't know it citizens are allowed to view them. I don't follow your reference to "moving streetlights." So far as I know, none were moved, nor was it necessary to do so to establish the path of Oswald's bullets.
There have been two serious books that support the "official" view written: Gerald Posner's Case Closed and Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. They really provide balance to the decades of nonsense from so-called researchers. Bugliosi's book is massive. 1500 pages. Footnotes on DVD. It's expensive and a long read but worth it. He answers all the questions.
As I've said, with respect, your self-confessed ignorance as to what happeed, and your suspicions about the validity of the "official" version aren't evidence. But if you haven't read anything that supports the "official" version, you're doing yourself a disservice. When Posner undertook writing Case Closed he discovered there was no reliable index of the 26 volumes of Warren Commission research. The official 800 page summary was indexed, but not the 26 volumes. The only index available had been created by an early conspiracist named Sylvia Meagher, and her index reflected her biases. Subsequent conspiracists used her flawed index to go down the same rabbit holes. So Posner had to start by creating a new index.
One thing conspiracists do repeatedly is simply to ignore evidence which doesn't support their theories. For instance, the 3 SBD employees who were watching the motorcade on the 5th floor, directly below Oswald. They all described hearing three shots, a rifle cycling and shells hitting the floor. There's photographic proof they were there. Their accuracy and veracity has never been challenged. But conspiracists studiously ignore mentioning them. Just as they do the eye witnesses who saw Oswald firing out of that window. Conspiracists love to make a big point of asking "how did Dallas PD get a description of Oswald on the radio so quickly?" Answer: Howard Brennan and a teenager named Amos Euins told the cops they'd seen a guy shooting out of that window and offered a general description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwH_5umBZM
Please pay no attention to Jim Garrison or JFK or Oliver Stone (I fear it may be too late). Although I liked the movie, it's a tissue of lies, misinformation, exaggerations, half truths and rumors all stitched together by a first rate polemicist. Garrison was completely in the pocket of New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello. In his two terms as DA, Garrison brought not a single organized crime case. Not one. In the movie, Kevin Costner makes the impassioned closing argument for the state. In truth, Garrison wasn't there. And the jury took just a few minutes to find Clay Shaw not guilty.
So there's plenty of information out there that will put that sad event in context. But relying on suspicion, skepticism, surmise and speculation (none of which is evidence) will leave you wondering, where none is appropriate. You may not be convinced. But you might be enlightened just a bit.
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
There's no question Hoover trying to ameliorate the damage to the Bureau's reputation when word began to leak out that it had had some contact with Oswald prior to the shooting. So to that extent there was a coverup. But none of Hoover's machinations could make the rifle Owald's, could create ear and eye witnesses who described shots coming from the sixth floor, could cause Oswald to be the only SBD employee to leave that day, could cause Oswald to do what any "innocent" man would do, go to his rooming house and get his pistol, cause him to shoot Officer Tippet or cause him to attempt to shoot the officers arresting him in the Texas Theatre.
As PBS showed (was it Monday?) the fact that Oswald was murdered obscures the fact that it took DPD only about an hour and a half to arrest the guy who killed the president and Officer Tippet. Ordinarily, really good police work.
There's no question Hoover trying to ameliorate the damage to the Bureau's reputation when word began to leak out that it had had some contact with Oswald prior to the shooting. So to that extent there was a coverup. But none of Hoover's machinations could make the rifle Owald's, could create ear and eye witnesses who described shots coming from the sixth floor, could cause Oswald to be the only SBD employee to leave that day, could cause Oswald to do what any "innocent" man would do, go to his rooming house and get his pistol, cause him to shoot Officer Tippet or cause him to attempt to shoot the officers arresting him in the Texas Theatre.
As PBS showed (was it Monday?) the fact that Oswald was murdered obscures the fact that it took DPD only about an hour and a half to arrest the guy who killed the president and Officer Tippet. Ordinarily, really good police work.
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
I ask again, are you suggesting someone else brought Oswald's rifle to the SBD and fired it? I think this is as good a place as any to apply Occam's Razor.
I ask again, are you suggesting someone else brought Oswald's rifle to the SBD and fired it? I think this is as good a place as any to apply Occam's Razor.
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
Don't forget, the Kennedy brothers had enlisted the aid of the mob in killing Castro (Operation Mongoose). And Chicago mob boss Momo Giancana was in on the planning to kill Castro and was also effectively pimping for JFK with Judith Campbell, who acted as a go between. When word of that alliance to kill Castro was made public (along with other matters) the outfit had Momo and Johnny Roselli whacked.
Don't forget, the Kennedy brothers had enlisted the aid of the mob in killing Castro (Operation Mongoose). And Chicago mob boss Momo Giancana was in on the planning to kill Castro and was also effectively pimping for JFK with Judith Campbell, who acted as a go between. When word of that alliance to kill Castro was made public (along with other matters) the outfit had Momo and Johnny Roselli whacked.
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
But what evidence is offered to support the notion that the mob had anything to do with the killing? I recall years ago some idiot came forward with a totally unbelievable story about how Carlos Marcello talked in front of him about "removing this stone from my shoe." And he lived to tell the tale?
And if it was the mob. Then that must mean it wasn't Castro, CIA, rogue elements in the pentagon, Secret Service agents, Corsican drug dealers, George de Mohrenschildt, etc. Right? And they hired a noodnik like Oswald to do their dirty work? Seriously? I know that Blakey of the House Assassinations Committee believes it was the mob. IMO, the evidence is thin. Inference. Supposition. Speculation. But no more. Nothing you could take to a grand jury.
But what evidence is offered to support the notion that the mob had anything to do with the killing? I recall years ago some idiot came forward with a totally unbelievable story about how Carlos Marcello talked in front of him about "removing this stone from my shoe." And he lived to tell the tale?
And if it was the mob. Then that must mean it wasn't Castro, CIA, rogue elements in the pentagon, Secret Service agents, Corsican drug dealers, George de Mohrenschildt, etc. Right? And they hired a noodnik like Oswald to do their dirty work? Seriously? I know that Blakey of the House Assassinations Committee believes it was the mob. IMO, the evidence is thin. Inference. Supposition. Speculation. But no more. Nothing you could take to a grand jury.
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
I took Flag's post as tongue in cheek. Especially the reference to Dorothy Kilgallen. The only thing she knew for certain (and she learned it too late) is not to mix scotch with barbiturates.
I took Flag's post as tongue in cheek. Especially the reference to Dorothy Kilgallen. The only thing she knew for certain (and she learned it too late) is not to mix scotch with barbiturates.
solovsfett
Registered User
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
gotta run to work soon but I have to ask you some questions here
if you're confident Oswald did it, why do you care the rest of the country isn't with you? What's the difference?
up above you say PBS shows the magic bullet could work and the bullet wouldn't be damaged yet in a prior post you say you saw or read where the bullet was badly damaged. Which is it?
The reference to Tippit's killer comes from Warren Commission testimony that was in the volumes (not the finished book you can find at barnes and noble). Suddenly, 50 years later we've found more witnesses to Tippitt's killing?
As far as only two guys being serious or official writers, who decided that? You? Of the thousands of writers who've tackled this Summers isn't serious? Just the 2 guys you mention and those 2 only who've said Oswald did it?
I recall Posner's interviews in 1993 or 94 and he came across as someone that was extremely angry about the movie JFK, and villified Jim Garrison mercilessly. Well, it's tough to tell now if Garrison's conclusions were close because his witnesses either died during his investigation or within 4-5 years of it, and he's been so alinsky'd by the press (see Mafia/Marcello, well if he didn't prosecute the mafia then he couldn't be right about his JFK investigation...what does one have to do w/the other?) and others that even bringing his name up now sparks ridicule. But regardless, I remember thinking Posner was on a mission to offset (just like say, the guy who wrote High Treason).
Anyway I don't believe LHO just thought this up and acted on his own.
I believe he was part of a group of 3 or 4, or possibly 5 or 6 people who discussed this murder, possibly planned it even. And when he did it he was silenced immediately.
gotta run to work soon but I have to ask you some questions here
if you're confident Oswald did it, why do you care the rest of the country isn't with you? What's the difference?
up above you say PBS shows the magic bullet could work and the bullet wouldn't be damaged yet in a prior post you say you saw or read where the bullet was badly damaged. Which is it?
The reference to Tippit's killer comes from Warren Commission testimony that was in the volumes (not the finished book you can find at barnes and noble). Suddenly, 50 years later we've found more witnesses to Tippitt's killing?
As far as only two guys being serious or official writers, who decided that? You? Of the thousands of writers who've tackled this Summers isn't serious? Just the 2 guys you mention and those 2 only who've said Oswald did it?
I recall Posner's interviews in 1993 or 94 and he came across as someone that was extremely angry about the movie JFK, and villified Jim Garrison mercilessly. Well, it's tough to tell now if Garrison's conclusions were close because his witnesses either died during his investigation or within 4-5 years of it, and he's been so alinsky'd by the press (see Mafia/Marcello, well if he didn't prosecute the mafia then he couldn't be right about his JFK investigation...what does one have to do w/the other?) and others that even bringing his name up now sparks ridicule. But regardless, I remember thinking Posner was on a mission to offset (just like say, the guy who wrote High Treason).
Anyway I don't believe LHO just thought this up and acted on his own.
I believe he was part of a group of 3 or 4, or possibly 5 or 6 people who discussed this murder, possibly planned it even. And when he did it he was silenced immediately.
Last edited:
solovsfett
Registered User
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
I'm suggesting one thing and one thing only. With the man-handling of that rifle I wouldn't believe it possible to lift prints. I saw the cops in the video grab the (whatever you call the part you put in your shoulder)...with bare hands. they held the stock with bare hands. I mean 3 or 4 cops in this video so I think about this and I say, no way in hell you get legit prints from that. No way.
I'm suggesting one thing and one thing only. With the man-handling of that rifle I wouldn't believe it possible to lift prints. I saw the cops in the video grab the (whatever you call the part you put in your shoulder)...with bare hands. they held the stock with bare hands. I mean 3 or 4 cops in this video so I think about this and I say, no way in hell you get legit prints from that. No way.
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
No, there's nothing to take to any jury. I'm just going with what I read in an acclaimed, accurate book that is an extensive history of the NY mob. And let's face it, sometimes the mob screws up, too (like maybe hiring a "noodnik" like Oswald).
Frankly, I don't care who killed JFK. Either way, he's dead.
No, there's nothing to take to any jury. I'm just going with what I read in an acclaimed, accurate book that is an extensive history of the NY mob. And let's face it, sometimes the mob screws up, too (like maybe hiring a "noodnik" like Oswald).
Frankly, I don't care who killed JFK. Either way, he's dead.
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
I remember a passage from Vincent Bugliosi's tome on the assassination. He said that when he was prosecuting in California one of the favorite arguments he heard from the defense was that there were no finger prints on the murder weapon or at the scene that tied the defendant to the case. To counter this, in most of his cases he brought in experts from the crime lab who offered some very interesting statistical analysis. Their testimony was something to the effect that when you factor in things like prints getting obliterated or contaminated by others handling the evidence, a relatively short period of time in which a usable print is available, inconsistency in the quality of prints from different surfaces, the fact that most prints are just partial at best, etc..., the police get a usable finger print in just a miniscule portion of crimes. It might be something like 1% or less. I don't recall the number.
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
The difference it makes, sir, is putting the blame for murdering a president of the United States on the person who actually committed the crime. Not some perfervid "conspiracy" for which there is zero proof and even less accountability.
I see we're going to go down Oliver Stone's talking points one by one. The so-called "magic bullet" has also been referred to as "pristine." It is neither. The bullet is significantly flattened on one side (where it struck the governor) and a small amount of lead has been extruded from the end. I did not say it was "badly" damaged. But neither was it "pristine." It is conspiracists who assert the bullet is "pristine" and therefore couldn't have caused the damage it did.
Not every witness to the Tippet shooting was called to testify before the Commission. More than one witness didn't actually see Oswald pull the trigger but did see him running from the scene, dumping empty cartridge cases as he ran. It was Dallas PD that called witnesses in to identify Oswald on Friday night.
Posner has written several well received books, including one on the assassination of MLK. Bugliosi wrote Helter Skelter which recounted his successful prosecution of the Manson "family." My point in mentioning this is that these two guys are known and successful for matters having nothing to do with the JFK assassination. They are not, in other words, professional conspiracy mongers, as the overwhelming majority of conspiracists are. They have lives and accomplishments beyond JFK.
As to Garrison, he was professionally and personally a person of significant disrepute. He was totally in the pocket of Carlos Marcello. And though that well known fact doesn't bear directly on his JFK investigation it does tend to cut against the image Costner portrayed in the film. His prosecution of Clay Shaw is taught in law schools as one of the great miscarriages of justice in our history. Just one example (among many) the DA of Orleans parish accepted donations to help fund his "investigation" of Shaw. Surely anyone can see what a bad idea that is. I can well imagine that Posner "vilified" both the movie and Garrison personally. They deserved it. "I could give you a phony name, but I won't. Just call me Mr. X."
And if you're going to argue post hoc ergo propter hoc regarding the deaths of the scumbags who were Garrison's witnesses, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Conspiracists (and possibly you) argue that the absence of evidence is evidence. Is that what you're claiming? Besides, Garrison's "star" witness (never referred to in the movie) is a guy by the name of Perry Russo (he actually had a small part in the film). He didn't "die mysteriously." He just made unverified and unverifiable claims about the "conspiracy" while under the influence of drugs. His testimony was thoroughly unbelievable. Which is why, I suppose, the jury acquitted Shaw in just a few minutes.
As I've said, belief in a "conspiracy" to kill JFK is now a secular religion for millions of Americans. You evidently are one of them. No harm in that of course. But is it asking too much to enquire who these people were with whom Oswald "conspired?" And what evidence you have of their "conspiring?" And what their motives for doing so were? And how have they escaped justice for half a century?
American presidential assassins (with only one exception) are loners. Little people trying to make themselves important. Nursing grudges. Or delusional. Look at Hinckley. He came this close to killing Reagan, to impress Jody Foster. Does that make any sense? Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore likewise came this close to killing Ford. And each of them was a couple of tacos short of a combo plate.
You're obviously free to believe every jot and tittle of Garrison's "theory." But it would be nice if he had settled on just one. Through articles, interviews and public appearances he offered countless lurid, frequently contradictory "explanations" for what happened in Dallas. And several of his associates abandoned him because of it. And it would be nice if he offered any credible evidence to support his theory. And it would be nice if you would do likewise.
The difference it makes, sir, is putting the blame for murdering a president of the United States on the person who actually committed the crime. Not some perfervid "conspiracy" for which there is zero proof and even less accountability.
I see we're going to go down Oliver Stone's talking points one by one. The so-called "magic bullet" has also been referred to as "pristine." It is neither. The bullet is significantly flattened on one side (where it struck the governor) and a small amount of lead has been extruded from the end. I did not say it was "badly" damaged. But neither was it "pristine." It is conspiracists who assert the bullet is "pristine" and therefore couldn't have caused the damage it did.
Not every witness to the Tippet shooting was called to testify before the Commission. More than one witness didn't actually see Oswald pull the trigger but did see him running from the scene, dumping empty cartridge cases as he ran. It was Dallas PD that called witnesses in to identify Oswald on Friday night.
Posner has written several well received books, including one on the assassination of MLK. Bugliosi wrote Helter Skelter which recounted his successful prosecution of the Manson "family." My point in mentioning this is that these two guys are known and successful for matters having nothing to do with the JFK assassination. They are not, in other words, professional conspiracy mongers, as the overwhelming majority of conspiracists are. They have lives and accomplishments beyond JFK.
As to Garrison, he was professionally and personally a person of significant disrepute. He was totally in the pocket of Carlos Marcello. And though that well known fact doesn't bear directly on his JFK investigation it does tend to cut against the image Costner portrayed in the film. His prosecution of Clay Shaw is taught in law schools as one of the great miscarriages of justice in our history. Just one example (among many) the DA of Orleans parish accepted donations to help fund his "investigation" of Shaw. Surely anyone can see what a bad idea that is. I can well imagine that Posner "vilified" both the movie and Garrison personally. They deserved it. "I could give you a phony name, but I won't. Just call me Mr. X."
And if you're going to argue post hoc ergo propter hoc regarding the deaths of the scumbags who were Garrison's witnesses, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Conspiracists (and possibly you) argue that the absence of evidence is evidence. Is that what you're claiming? Besides, Garrison's "star" witness (never referred to in the movie) is a guy by the name of Perry Russo (he actually had a small part in the film). He didn't "die mysteriously." He just made unverified and unverifiable claims about the "conspiracy" while under the influence of drugs. His testimony was thoroughly unbelievable. Which is why, I suppose, the jury acquitted Shaw in just a few minutes.
As I've said, belief in a "conspiracy" to kill JFK is now a secular religion for millions of Americans. You evidently are one of them. No harm in that of course. But is it asking too much to enquire who these people were with whom Oswald "conspired?" And what evidence you have of their "conspiring?" And what their motives for doing so were? And how have they escaped justice for half a century?
American presidential assassins (with only one exception) are loners. Little people trying to make themselves important. Nursing grudges. Or delusional. Look at Hinckley. He came this close to killing Reagan, to impress Jody Foster. Does that make any sense? Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore likewise came this close to killing Ford. And each of them was a couple of tacos short of a combo plate.
You're obviously free to believe every jot and tittle of Garrison's "theory." But it would be nice if he had settled on just one. Through articles, interviews and public appearances he offered countless lurid, frequently contradictory "explanations" for what happened in Dallas. And several of his associates abandoned him because of it. And it would be nice if he offered any credible evidence to support his theory. And it would be nice if you would do likewise.
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
How do you know this handling of the rifle didn't occur after it was dusted for prints? And even if you're right, does it make any difference? It was Oswald's rifle. He brought it to work with him that morning wrapped in brown paper. All of the bullets recovered in Dealey Plaza matched that rifle to the exclusion of every rifle in the world. Oswald was there, firing. Ear and eye witnesses have so testified. Oswald was the one who bolted from the SBD (the only employee to do so). Oswald is the one who ran home and picked up his pistol. Oswald is the one who murdered Officer Tippet. Oswald is the one who attempted to shoot the coos who were arresting him. So I ask again of what particular significance is this conclusion you've drawn that DPD mishandled the rifle, removing potential "other" fingerprints? What would it mean if they had?
How do you know this handling of the rifle didn't occur after it was dusted for prints? And even if you're right, does it make any difference? It was Oswald's rifle. He brought it to work with him that morning wrapped in brown paper. All of the bullets recovered in Dealey Plaza matched that rifle to the exclusion of every rifle in the world. Oswald was there, firing. Ear and eye witnesses have so testified. Oswald was the one who bolted from the SBD (the only employee to do so). Oswald is the one who ran home and picked up his pistol. Oswald is the one who murdered Officer Tippet. Oswald is the one who attempted to shoot the coos who were arresting him. So I ask again of what particular significance is this conclusion you've drawn that DPD mishandled the rifle, removing potential "other" fingerprints? What would it mean if they had?
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
The nice thing about conspiracy theories is they aren't tethered to evidence. Conspiracists just make them up as they go along. And if any pesky evidence emerges, they just change their theories accordingly. For instance, in the early days of conspiracies much was made of a photo showing a man standing in the doorway of the SBD as the motorcade went past. A very poor resolution photo showed a man who kinda resembled LHO. Well, if that's LHO standing in the doorway, then he couldn't have been on the sixth floor shooting, blah, blah, blah. Except it was SBD employee Billy Lovelady. And like Emily Litella, after making a BFD about the photo, the conspiracists said "nevermind," and moved on to some other "irrefutable fact" that "proved" Oswald didn't do it. This has been going on for half a century. Time to give it up fellows.
50 years later. And people (the overwhelming majority of whom haven't spent 5 minutes reading about the case) have a "hunch" or "suspicion" that there was a conspiracy. It's been 20 years since JFK was released. I'd guess the only reading the vast majority of Americans have done on the case are the few paragraphs in their high school American history texts. Maybe a day or two of discussion. Possibly seeing JFK on cable. Yet, because the notion of a conspiracy is part of our culture, they believe it. Without proof.
Amen.
So maybe Momo Giancana (a proud resident of my hometown) or other members of The Outfit were involved. These guys weren't masterminds. They were ruthless. And psychotic in some instances. And why would they kill a president when they had studiously avoided attacking police officers, prosecutors and other public officials? One of the things that minimized public outrage at their activities was the fact that they "only kill each other." So in a massive change in tactics, they decide they're going to take out POTUS and assume they'll get away with it? And they hire LHO to do the job? And then order a loose screw like Ruby to kill Oswald? Why didn't they hire somebody to kill Ruby?
Our difference here is the difference between possible and plausible. Half a century. Where's the evidence?
No, there's nothing to take to any jury. I'm just going with what I read in an acclaimed, accurate book that is an extensive history of the NY mob. And let's face it, sometimes the mob screws up, too (like maybe hiring a "noodnik" like Oswald).
Frankly, I don't care who killed JFK. Either way, he's dead.
The nice thing about conspiracy theories is they aren't tethered to evidence. Conspiracists just make them up as they go along. And if any pesky evidence emerges, they just change their theories accordingly. For instance, in the early days of conspiracies much was made of a photo showing a man standing in the doorway of the SBD as the motorcade went past. A very poor resolution photo showed a man who kinda resembled LHO. Well, if that's LHO standing in the doorway, then he couldn't have been on the sixth floor shooting, blah, blah, blah. Except it was SBD employee Billy Lovelady. And like Emily Litella, after making a BFD about the photo, the conspiracists said "nevermind," and moved on to some other "irrefutable fact" that "proved" Oswald didn't do it. This has been going on for half a century. Time to give it up fellows.
50 years later. And people (the overwhelming majority of whom haven't spent 5 minutes reading about the case) have a "hunch" or "suspicion" that there was a conspiracy. It's been 20 years since JFK was released. I'd guess the only reading the vast majority of Americans have done on the case are the few paragraphs in their high school American history texts. Maybe a day or two of discussion. Possibly seeing JFK on cable. Yet, because the notion of a conspiracy is part of our culture, they believe it. Without proof.
Amen.
So maybe Momo Giancana (a proud resident of my hometown) or other members of The Outfit were involved. These guys weren't masterminds. They were ruthless. And psychotic in some instances. And why would they kill a president when they had studiously avoided attacking police officers, prosecutors and other public officials? One of the things that minimized public outrage at their activities was the fact that they "only kill each other." So in a massive change in tactics, they decide they're going to take out POTUS and assume they'll get away with it? And they hire LHO to do the job? And then order a loose screw like Ruby to kill Oswald? Why didn't they hire somebody to kill Ruby?
Our difference here is the difference between possible and plausible. Half a century. Where's the evidence?
Last edited:
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
A couple of decades ago there was a made for TV production called "On Trial--Lee Harvey Oswald." It's on Youtube. Although it was taped in UK it involved testimony of actual witnesses, real Dallas residents as jurors and a real Texas judge. Gerry Spence defended Oswald. And Bugliosi prosecuted. It's useful to watch because it gives you some idea of what opposing Bugliosi in court was like (generally not pretty). And you get a chance to see the people who were really there that day. Like SBD employee Harold Norman, who testified to hearing a rifle fire, then cycle, a shell hit the floor then fire again, etc. And this was right over his head!
In Helter Skelter Bugliosi described the two different groups of detectives. The first group, more traditional, crew cut was assigned the Tate killings. The second group, younger, hipper got the LaBianca killings. The younger cops almost immediately suspected a connection (the writing on the walls in blood at both crime scenes was the principal reason). The older cops rejected that conclusion and shined the younger cops on. That delayed the investigation.
Bugliosi also writes that at some point he asked detectives if they had done something regarding the evidence. They responded with "not my yob," and he went through the roof, telling them in no uncertain terms it was their yob, and they better get off their a*ses and get him the evidence he wanted. That investigation wasn't exactly a triumph for LAPD. Remember, the Buntline Special .22 pistol that was used to batter Jay Sebring's head and shoot him, had been turned in and was in police custody all along. TV crews (and not the cops) were able to find the bloody clothing discarded by the killers by following the timeline offered by Linda Kasabian. Bugliosi is a bull dog.
A couple of decades ago there was a made for TV production called "On Trial--Lee Harvey Oswald." It's on Youtube. Although it was taped in UK it involved testimony of actual witnesses, real Dallas residents as jurors and a real Texas judge. Gerry Spence defended Oswald. And Bugliosi prosecuted. It's useful to watch because it gives you some idea of what opposing Bugliosi in court was like (generally not pretty). And you get a chance to see the people who were really there that day. Like SBD employee Harold Norman, who testified to hearing a rifle fire, then cycle, a shell hit the floor then fire again, etc. And this was right over his head!
In Helter Skelter Bugliosi described the two different groups of detectives. The first group, more traditional, crew cut was assigned the Tate killings. The second group, younger, hipper got the LaBianca killings. The younger cops almost immediately suspected a connection (the writing on the walls in blood at both crime scenes was the principal reason). The older cops rejected that conclusion and shined the younger cops on. That delayed the investigation.
Bugliosi also writes that at some point he asked detectives if they had done something regarding the evidence. They responded with "not my yob," and he went through the roof, telling them in no uncertain terms it was their yob, and they better get off their a*ses and get him the evidence he wanted. That investigation wasn't exactly a triumph for LAPD. Remember, the Buntline Special .22 pistol that was used to batter Jay Sebring's head and shoot him, had been turned in and was in police custody all along. TV crews (and not the cops) were able to find the bloody clothing discarded by the killers by following the timeline offered by Linda Kasabian. Bugliosi is a bull dog.
Last edited:
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
After 50 years I find it difficult to comprehend how any person capable of even the tiniest amount of critical thinking can think anything other than LHO was the only person shooting at the car that day, that he fired three shots, that the first missed, the second injured JFK and the governor, and the third hit JFK in the head and killed him instantly (for all intents and purposes. His body held on for a few minutes, sure). We have learned quite a bit about LHO in the 50 years since 11/22/63 and everything I've learned about him tells me he could surely have thought this out and committed the act. Was there something else going on? I don't know for sure. But I do know that after 50 years there is no credible evidence that points in that direction. C'mon folks. It was Oswald's gun. He bought it. He fired the shots.
After 50 years I find it difficult to comprehend how any person capable of even the tiniest amount of critical thinking can think anything other than LHO was the only person shooting at the car that day, that he fired three shots, that the first missed, the second injured JFK and the governor, and the third hit JFK in the head and killed him instantly (for all intents and purposes. His body held on for a few minutes, sure). We have learned quite a bit about LHO in the 50 years since 11/22/63 and everything I've learned about him tells me he could surely have thought this out and committed the act. Was there something else going on? I don't know for sure. But I do know that after 50 years there is no credible evidence that points in that direction. C'mon folks. It was Oswald's gun. He bought it. He fired the shots.
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
LOL. I started to respond "John Daniels" but held off.
LOL. I started to respond "John Daniels" but held off.
Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald
Don't forget. He also took a shot at General Walker (who was a very big deal in those days). He visited on Marina on Thursday night instead of the customary Friday. Marina was staying at Ruth Paine's house and their possessions, including Lee's rifle, were stored in her garage. The next morning when she woke, Marina found just about all the money Lee had in the world and his wedding ring on the dresser. And he had that package wrapped in brown paper with him when Buell Frazier took him to work. He said the package contained curtain rods. And since conspiracists take every utterance of Oswald's as gospel ("I am just a patsy") it's fair to ask: where were the curtain rods? On the sixth floor, detectives found the rifle, the cartridge cases and the brown paper. But no curtain rods. What happened to them? Later that day when the FBI arrived at the Paine home, Marina took the agents out to the garage, and Oswald's rifle was gone.
Don't forget. He also took a shot at General Walker (who was a very big deal in those days). He visited on Marina on Thursday night instead of the customary Friday. Marina was staying at Ruth Paine's house and their possessions, including Lee's rifle, were stored in her garage. The next morning when she woke, Marina found just about all the money Lee had in the world and his wedding ring on the dresser. And he had that package wrapped in brown paper with him when Buell Frazier took him to work. He said the package contained curtain rods. And since conspiracists take every utterance of Oswald's as gospel ("I am just a patsy") it's fair to ask: where were the curtain rods? On the sixth floor, detectives found the rifle, the cartridge cases and the brown paper. But no curtain rods. What happened to them? Later that day when the FBI arrived at the Paine home, Marina took the agents out to the garage, and Oswald's rifle was gone.
Last edited: