HBO/Hanks/Playtone JFK Assassination Series Set For 2013 Release

[stopbush]

Looks like the Tom Hanks-produced miniseries based on Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History is on track for a 2013 release to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Actor Bill Paxton discussed the series on the Tavis Smiley show back in March:

Paxton: "And then in 2000 (unintelligible) the 50th anniversary of the assassination. And I thought, has anyone ever just told this story without bias, without an agenda, without a conspiracy? Just tell it as a human interest story. And as I researched it I found out Vincent Bugliosi was just about to release a book which is unbelievable, it's a cellular analysis called "Reclaiming History."

"I took this to Tom. Tom Hanks' company, Playtone, do these long-form series about American history - "John Adams," "Band of Brothers," "Earth to Moon." And so Tom said, "This is our next project." So we're working on it for 2013."

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200903/20090316_paxton.html

[peacetalksforall]

1. Thanks for posting. Should be good.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Having lived thru 11/22/63, it is difficult for me to imagine it being told without

some sort of bias or agenda. To just present the facts, without any emotion, seems to take away all the tragedy and irony from the event.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. sad...utter horseshit.

a brazillian responses to Bugliosi's prosecutor's brief, which is all it is, but here's an interesting take on it:

http://mitchellfreedman.blogspot.com/2007/05/ignorant-reviewer-of-bugliosi-book_26.html


A section, commenting on the lavage of a review in the NYT, by Bryan Burrough:

If Burrough knew anything about the subject, and had actually read Weisberg's work, he would know Weisberg actually spoke with the various witnesses who appeared before the Warren Comission, and read and absorbed their deposition testimony. That was the basis of Weisberg's conclusion that the Warren Commission report is flawed. Again, one doesn't have to prove Oswald was an agent for anyone to conclude the Warren Commission's report failed to sufficiently prove there was only one gunman or that the lone gunman was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Burrough is so credulous and ignorant that he never mentions, in his review, the Mob connection to the JFK murder. See here and here for my recent discussions regarding the Mob connection to JFK's murder, for example. However, the reviwer in Publisher's Weekly (see Publisher's Weekly review in the Amazon link to Bugliosi's book) noted there is reason to believe the Mob was involved in JFK's assassination. The Publisher's Weekly reviewer further noted Bugliosi spends more time attacking Oliver Stone than analyzing the evidence regarding the Mob's involvement in the assassination, which I think proves WW Norton's editors were horribly negligent in their approval of this poorly edited and vetted book.

It's ironic to note that historian Alan Brinkley, asked to review a new book on the Kennedy brothers, in the same edition of the NY Times Sunday Book Review, is more solicitous, though still doubtful, regarding a second gunman or conspiracy to kill JFK. Brinkley has enough knowledge of the JFK assassination to know there is credible information to prove the involvement of the Mob in JFK's murder. Brinkley's review even begins with the revelation that RFK's initial reaction to the assassination was that the Mob, the CIA or related elements may have been involved.

Brinkley also correctly notes that the new book on the Kennedy brothers is too credulous about JFK's success as president and too optimistic that Kennedy was going to lead America to the promised land. I was very impressed that Brinkley recognizes that JFK was not likely to avoid the Vietnam War if he had lived and continued as president.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Prosecutor's brief? Have you read the book to know this?

Or are you getting your opinion about it from someone else?

And if so, could you provide the link? The last person who called it a prosecutor's brief refused to give me a link, even though he admitted that he hadn't read the book.

[MrMickeysMom]

130. Here's a link...

A most credible source from a site that not only continually speaks with book reviewers, it has an audio of Bugliosi's horseshit...

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

# Show #409
Original airdate: Jan 29th, 2009
Guest: Mark Lane
Topics: Review of Bugliosi



Part One - Mark Lane
# Bugliosi exposed as a fruad by Mark
# Bugliosi refers to the TV trial of Oswald as an actual trial
# He settles on hearsay testimony. He never goes to the source
# He picks information to fit the story rather than letting the evidence speak
# An article on Bugliosi in PDF format from Mark Lane's website
# There are a great many other interesting things on Mark's site
# Mark talks about Bugliosi's manner of writing... a "Bugliosi saves the day" style
# He talks about his case against E Howard Hunt
# Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming
# How Hunt hung himself in his trial
# Lane's trouble getting his books published
# Mark is now writing his autobiography
# He's been practicing law for 57 years
# Obama has been signing bills that Lane has long fought for
# Investigating the MLK case... Hoover arranged the murder
# An eyewitness proving Ray wasn't the killer was committed
# How Lane got the woman out of Memphis
# How times have (and America has) changed since Mark was a young man
# Grant Park: A three day protest ordeal in Chicago in 1968
# Obama used Grant Park for part of his platform, silently of course
# Lane sees great hope with the Obama administration

[ControlledDemolition]

201. Useful post MrMickeysMom. 'Bugliosi's horseshit' is right! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

155. Nixon - of 'the Cuban thing' fame - was in Dallas on 11/22/63.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. hey, Vince, what about this:

I find it interesting that one of Mr. Buglisi's comments was something to the effect that "if the mob was involved, would they have used such a cheap rifle for the assassination? They would have used the best weapons to do the job".

I forgot the exact comment but it was on this order:
Well Mr. Bugliosi, you are in effect saying that Oswald's gun was so inaccurate that even professional killers wouldn't have used it. So how could someone like Oswald, who barely qualifed on the range while in the Marines, do such accurate shooting?

Did he secretly go to the range and practice for years and years to get good? No evidence of that. You have in effect said that a Manlicher-Carcano is a cheap, inaccurate weapon, yet you say it was responsible for all the damage that terrible day. You are way off...I just hope not too many people waste money buying your book...you slant everything one way and ignore the obvious!

http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1682

from the comments at the link

[old mark]

8. Actually, this isn't true - Oswald's USMC range record book

shows that he was a well above average marksman. The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm rifle used was a much better rifle than it was seen to be at the time - they are certainly accurate enough, and the rifle is capable of fast operation and quick handling. Its low price was a factor of the times - they were Italian Army surplus and probably cost the wholesalers $5 each. They were good quality rifles, made by Beretta or an equally good maker.

mark

[ngant17]

9. marksman is no expert

Oswald was a lousy shot, he scored "Maggie's Drawers" on the range.

Bugliosi's book has been proven to be a large volume of nonsense. It's a waste of money to make a movie based on such drivel and half-truths and misinformation.

[old mark]

10. I haven't seen that book - this is the first I have heard of it.....but

I have seen a copy of Oswald's range record - He was NOT a bad shot.
That's just another myth.

mark

ADDED: There is a letter sent from the USMC to Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the President's Commission on the assassintaion stating that Oswald scored a 212 in his A course in boot camp, qualifying him ar a Sharpshooter (min=210). It is found on ine in the site;jfkassassination.net

[stopbush]

16. Oswald scored as a sharpshooter on his first test, and only a few points under expert.

He later tested at the lower rating of marksman, around the time his USMC enlistment was ending. Perhaps he didn't care at that point. The first score was the important score as that basically set his trajectory thru the USMC.

This is all documented in the USMC records and is beyond dispute. That you don't know about this strongly indicates you are not cognizant of the facts in the case. The "Maggie's Drawers" comment you reference was a line of dialogue that Oliver Stones invented for his movie. It is not factual.

Amazing that you consider fiction to be reality.

I think we can dismiss your expertise in the JFK killing out of hand.

[ControlledDemolition]

154. Self delete

[ControlledDemolition]

214. "This is all documented in the USMC records and is beyond dispute."

Just like the 'Hitler Diaries'.

[ControlledDemolition]

224. Methinks his book on Bush is designed to give him 'street-cred' regarding JFK's hit! n/t

[madamesilverspurs]

77. There was a report

(cited, maybe, in Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement"?) that the Warren Commission had the rifle and scope re-tooled for repeated test shots by experts, that they were unable to replicate the shots without those adjustments. I read that back around 1967, but have seen that scenario discussed elsewhere since then.

[stopbush]

79. An absolute lie not supported by the evidence and testimony in the case.

Depending on Mark Lane for your "facts" in the JFK killing is like depending on gw bush for guidelines on human rights.

The rifle and the condition of the rifle when it was repeatedly test-fired for the WC is all heavily documented and has been since the beginning.

First off, the scope on Oswald's rifle was damaged and off center, but there is no way of knowing when this happened. It could have happened after the shooting when Oswald tried to hide the weapon. But that doesn't matter, because ALL of the test shots done with the rifle scope were done WITH the site off center. Most likely, the test shooters dealt with a handicap that Oswald didn't have, yet they still hit the targets and one shooter got three shots off and hit the target in 4.4 seconds, while Oswald had up to 8.5 seconds to take his three shots.

Also, Oswald's rifle was equipped with iron sites, and it's entirely possible that he didn't even use the scope. Test shots fired using the iron sites were just as accurate and fast as they were with the damaged scope. The iron sites were not damaged on the rifle.

ALL of that info is in the WCR, if you could but bothered to read it.

[madamesilverspurs]

82. Geez, chill willya?

For whatever reason your OP and the following comments triggered that particular memory, figured I'd share it just because I mistook your lecture for a conversation.

I won't be making that mistake again.

[stopbush]

92. Posts like yours averring that tests were faked are akin to averring that

gw bush won 8 gold medals in swimming at the last Olympic Games. Neither has any basis in fact and is ludicrous on its face.

The only difference is that belief in the JFK CTs apparently allows one to check their good sense at the door, and to entertain the idea that such ridiculous claims might be true.

I'd be happier if you didn't make that mistake again.

[madamesilverspurs]

102. I averred no such thing. I was 'conversing.'

You pissed in your own wheaties, it's time to pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.

[stopbush]

108. I don't consider conversation to include slandering people and accusing them

of being accessories after the fact in the murder of a sitting president.

Yet that's what you and the rest of the ill-informed CTists delve in as your stock-in-trade. Do you never pause to think what you're accusing people of being involved in, people who lived and worked next to JFK, people like his SS detail who to a man considered JFK to be a personal friend?

And the people who did the hard work of scientific testing of the evidence in the case, and the FBI agents who conducted 25,000 interviews as part of the Warren Commission, and the seven men on the commission who weighed the evidence - including Earl Warren who was a great champion of equal rights for blacks - all of these dedicated people may be smeared and accused of the highest treason by any lightweight who is willing to post some idiocy that they maybe remember hearing somewhere. And if they get it wrong, well, then just chill, man.

Pretty cavalier.

You know, if a was a CTist, for starters, I'd look at the accusations made against LBJ and Earl Warren and suspect that there was some concerted effort underway to destroy the reputations of two Dems who put their careers on the line to advance civil rights in this country at a time when it was not a foregone conclusion that blacks would receive those rights. I'd look at the people making these unfounded accusations against these men in the JFK killing and wonder which corporate masters they were serving. I'd look at how these accusations have smeared and continue to smear the reputations of two Dems who should be universally praised for what they did on the civil rights front, but who are now despised thanks to the fantasies advanced by the JFK CT crowd. In fact, there's a ring of truth about that way of thinking that bears further investigation.

[dflprincess]

205. Earl Warren was a Republican

He was Thomas Dewey's running mate in 1948 and wanted to be the nominee in 1952. Despite his later pro civl rights rulings, he was a major player in the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Eisenhower appointed him to the Supreme Court (and was much surprised by how that turned out). His time as Chief Justice made him a target of the wing nuts.

I mention this because you're such a stickler about people having their facts straight. I don't think Warren had anything to do with the assassination - though he certainly lent his name to the cover up.

[stopbush]

209. You are exactly right and I stand corrected on that point.

Warren was a Republican as you say.

And, yes, Eisenhower regretted appointing him to the SCOTUS. RWers like Bork despise him because he turned out to be quite the liberal on the court.

Thanks for the correction. I am a stickler for having facts straight, and I appreciate your providing a corrective. What's good for the goose...

[ControlledDemolition]

156. Initial reports - usually the most telling - were that a Mauser was used. n/t

[Sweet and Spicy]

104. Too bad the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek came out negative

I would wish a prosecutor good luck trying to nail a defendant in these circumstances.

[stopbush]

105. Wrong. Paraffin tests came out positive on both of Oswald's hands.

The negative test was on his cheek, but that's to be expected as the firing chamber on his rifle was sealed and no powder would have escaped from there.

Of course, at the time Oswald was tested, the FBI had already done field tests that showed that paraffin tests were very unreliable. The FBI got false positives in about half of the tests they ran. Law enforcement used them as an intimidation device to extract confessions, not as a scientific measure of whether or not a gun had recently been fired. I only mention that to add perspective that the CTists want to avoid.

So, while you are quite wrong in saying the paraffin tests came back negative on Oswald, the fact remains that their coming back positive didn't prove anything.

BTW - the paraffin tests are all part of the record, something you obviously have no knowledge of.

[Sweet and Spicy]

109. Oswald handled books, and printed ink can produce a positive paraffin test in the hands

Do you dispute this?

Furthermore, while there was more barium and antimony present on the casts than would normally be found on the hands of a person who had not fired a weapon or handled a fired weapon, it is also true that barium and antimony may be present in many common items; for example, barium may be present in grease, ceramics, glass, paint, printing ink, paper, rubber, plastics, leather, cloth, pyrotechnics, oilcloth and linoleum, storage batteries, matches and cosmetics; antimony is present in matches, type metal, lead alloys, paints and lacquers, pigments for oil and water colors, flameproof textiles, storage batteries, pyrotechnics, rubber, pharmaceutical preparations and calico; and both barium and antimony are present in printed paper and cloth, paint, storage batteries, rubber, matches, pyrotechnics, and possibly other items. However, the barium and antimony present in these items are usually not present in a form which would lead to their adhering to the skin of a person who had handled such items. 97

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page562.php

[stopbush]

112. What's the difference? Paraffin tests were unreliable.

As far as handling "books" that day, Oswald's orders for the day went unfilled. He didn't bother pulling the orders. Not all of the orders at the TSBD involved onesies and twosies. Some involved cases of books that Oswald would have pulled with a hand truck.

And why make excuses for a guy who killed two people on 11/22/63 in the first place? Even if one wishes to stipulate that he didn't kill JFK (which he did), 10 people were witness to Oswald killing Officer Tippet with his (Oswald's) revolver. He would have had residue on his hands from that action alone. But the bottom line is that with 10 witnesses to the killing, the gun owned by Oswald and the ballistics tests confirming the bullets that killed both JFK and Tippett came from Oswald's weapons, there's no need to go to an unreliable paraffin test to prove his guilt.

The point is that the CTists aver that the paraffin tests on Oswald were negative, as if that casts doubt on Oswald being the killer. That's an outright lie based either on pure or willing ignorance. The paraffin tests were positive on his hands, so why not stipulate the truth? Why continue to regurgitate a red herring that has no basis whatsoever in fact?

The only real question is whether a positive paraffin test proves anything. It doesn't. Averring that they came back negative on Oswald is simply stupid.

[Sweet and Spicy]

114. What do you mean "why make excuses"?

Who did he kill? Tippit? With a defective revolver that didn't fire in the movie theater? Oh wait, maybe you claim he killed Tippit because the come out positive? Interesting?

And you mean that if Oswald had killed two people we would have to blame him automatically for the death of John F. Kennedy? That's some strange logic right there.

[stopbush]

115. You have no knowledge of the evidence in the case, so it's

impossible to have a serious discussion with you.

The revolver was not defective. Oswald was restrained by an arresting officer as he was pulling the revolver and he couldn't fire the weapon. Where did you get the idiocy that the revolver was defective? I'll guess you either made it up out of thin air or read it on some lame-brained CT site.

The logic behind saying that Oswald killed both JFK & Tippett lies in the hard evidence. That's all one needs. No need to speculate on motive, though Oswald's has his own motivation.

You CTists are all alike. Throw shit against a wall and see what sticks. You feel no need to provide evidence for your silly little claims, as if making the claim was evidence in and of itself. You don't even know how to formulate an intelligent question, let alone ask it and defend it. To do that, you'd need to have at least a cursory knowledge of the evidence in the case, which you don't have (and as your howlers about the paraffin tests and the "defective" revolver prove beyond any doubt whatsoever).

Speaking with you about the JFK killing is like discussing calculus with a first grader. You're simply not equipped to have the discussion.

There are JFK CTists around who can make a decent if flawed argument for their case. You're not one of them.

I'm certainly not going to be bothered educating a person on this case who can't be bothered to get the most fundamental things about the case right before jumping into the fray. You're as lazy as you are gullible.

[Sweet and Spicy]

120. The revolver misfired. And hey...what's up with that impostor in Mexico City eh?

Let me give you a break, since you find yourself in a jam...given that you ignore the misifiring of the revolver in the movie theater.

What was that impostor doing in Mexico City trying to impersonate Oswald? And where are the photos (the HSCA concluded photos of Oswald were taken in Mexico City)?

[stopbush]

124. More CT nonsense. There's no end to it.

The revolver did not misfire. People heard a click that they assumed was a misfire, but it did not misfire. Here's the WCR testimony from FBI agent Cunningham:

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to Exhibit 518, consisting of four bullets, which, as I mentioned earlier, were, like the two bullets in Exhibit 145, taken from the chamber of the revolver, did you find any nicks in any of these bullets, the bases of any of these bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just by handling, there are bound to be small microscopic scratches of one kind or other. But there was no indication that any of the primers in these four cartridges had been struck by a firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these also examined microscopically?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, individually.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say there was no indication that they were struck by a firing pin, in your opinion, based on the construction of this weapon, if the firing pin had been drawn back to any extent and then released, would it have left a mark on one of the cartridges?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is -- yes and no. It depends on how far it is drawn back.

Mr. EISENBERG. . . . Now, Mr. Cunningham, to focus this line of questioning, Officer McDonald, who has reported that he was in a struggle with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22d, while Oswald was in possession of this revolver, has stated that--I am reading now from an affidavit, from a letter from Officer McDonald to Mr. J. E. Curry, chief of police of the Dallas Police Force, dated December 3, 1963.

He states in this letter that as he came in contact with Oswald, "I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip, I heard the snap of the hammer, and the pistol crossed over my left cheek. I marked the pistol and six rounds at central station. The primer of one round was dented on misfire at the time of the struggle with the suspect."

Now, in light of your examination of this weapon, and your discussion, could you comment on this statement?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I personally have fired this weapon numerous times, as well as Special Agents Robert Frazier and Charles Killion. At no time did we ever attempt to fire this weapon that it misfired. It operated excellently and every time we have tried to fire it, it has fired.

It is very possible when he says that he reached across, and he grabbed it, that he locked the cylinder, which I think any trained police officer would do. You want to stop this cylinder from rotating. As soon as you do that, you have actually stepped the hammer falling on a live round, because if the hammer is allowed to go forward again, and it hasn't gotten into the cocked position, the rebound slide, as I was stating before, would block the firing pin from striking the primer of the cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the cylinder is so interconnected with the trigger, that the trigger cannot be pulled all the way back when the cylinder has been firmly grasped?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And, if the hammer has not been pulled all the way back, the rebound slide will not allow the firing pin to strike the cartridge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.(14)


It's all in the WCR:

http://www.jfk-online.com/mcdonald.html

Got any other myths for us today?

[Sweet and Spicy]

126. The impostor, stopbush. The impostor. Don't pretend I didn't ask you about him, my LN friend n/t

[stopbush]

127. Listen, nube, I can slap that one down just as easily as I have the other myths

you've posted.

How about this, Mr 24 posts - you make a $ donation to DU and get yourself a star. Until then, I'll consider you just another unteachable and unreachable troll who engages is stupid drive-by posts that do nothing but lower the aggregate IQ of this site.

The impostor. What an ass you are.

[Sweet and Spicy]

128. Uh oh, stop has no explanation as to why a man impersonated Oswald in Mexico City

As stated by none other than J. Edgar Hoover in a telephone conversation with Lyndon B. Johnson.

We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

Transcript: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0029a.htm

[stopbush]

131. Bwaaahhh! I can't believe you pulled THAT one out of your ass!

First off, Hoover did NOT say this in a phone call to LBJ. It appeared in a 5-page PRELIMINARY analysis of the assassination that was made on 11/23/73, the day after the assassination. Hoover wrote that agents in Dallas who had Oswald in custody had listened to a recording of his voice and looked at pictures that originated on 10/1/63 that were purported to be of Oswald, and were of the opinion that they were not of Oswald. Hoover was simply misreporting something that had been told him. He made a human error, just as many others did over that weekend (it bears noting that Hoover made similar errors that weekend, reporting in a memo he sent out at 2:21 pm on 11/22 that "A SS agent had been killed." In an earlier memo sent out at 1:48pm, Hoover wrote "The President & Gov Conally were shot at the corner of Elm & Commerce Streets." These are errors tha are to be expected under such circumstances...unless you're a JFK CTist!).

The "Second Oswald in Mexico" was thoroughly investigated by the HSCA who learned that later in the SAME day - at 7:23 pm, CST, 11/23/63 - Dallas FBI agent-in-charge Gordon Shanklin advised Hoover of his error, informing him that only a report of Oswald's conversation was received by the Dallas field office from the CIA station in Mexico City, NOT an actual tape recording of the conversation. And, on Nov. 25, the Dallas office AGAIN appraised Hoover that, "there appears to be some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas. Only typewritten reports were supplied."

The HSCA went on to say, "Shanklin stated in a Committee interview that no recording was ever received by FBI officials in Dallas. Moreover, former FBI Special Agents James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter, and Arnold J. Brown, each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the Committee that they had never listened to a recording of Oswald's voice. The Committee concluded, therefore, that the information in the 11/23/63 letterhead memorandum (the assassination analysis by Hoover) WAS MISTAKEN and DID NOT provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter."

However, there is copious proof that Oswald was in Mexico City when he said he was. He received a visa stamp on his passport. There are recordings of his phone conversations in MC. The HSCA even obtained a picture of Oswald entering the Mexican consulate and Cuban embassy. There are records of him crossing the border into Mexico on 9/26 around 2pm at Nuevo Laredo. The Fletcha Roja bus line records show Oswald arrived in Mex City around 10am on 9/27/63. He checked into the Hotel del Commercio that day and paid for 5 night's lodging. He crossed back into Texas at 1:35 am on 10/2/63. He was positively identified by the manager at the Hotel and by Señora Silvia Tirado de Duran who processed Oswald's request for a Cuban visa on 9/27/63. Señora Duran immediately recognized Oswald when his picture ran on the front page of the Mexico City daily El Dia on 11/23/63. A photograph of Oswald is stapled to his visa application. In his 11/9/63 letter to the Soviet embassy in DC, Oswald recounts the problems he had in securing a Cuban visa while in Mexico City. After he was arrested, Oswald told investigators about his Mexican trip. Silvia Duran's name and phone number were found among Oswald's possessions after his arrest.

And on and on it goes.

Even wacko CTist John Newman - who wrote a book alleging Oswald was a CIA operative - admits that the real Oswald was in Mexico City during the time in question. He just believes that there was an IMPOSTOR Oswald in MC at the exact same time! And why was an impostor Oswald there at the same time as the real Oswald? According to Newman, it was because "someone wanted to make sure that Oswald's Cuban and KGB contacts in Mexico were fully documented." Why? Why, to "establish evidence of an international Communist conspiracy" to murder JFK.

Never does Newman ask what would seem to be a logical question: why the need for an impostor in Mexico City to do all of the above when the REAL Oswald was on the scene doing all of that on his own already? The mind boggles at the stupidity of the allegations. It fairly reels at the absence of a logical follow-up question as to "why" such hair-brained schemes would be necessary in the first place.

Oh, as far as the picture of the "impostor Oswald?" Nobody but the wacko CTists allege that the pictures were believed to be Oswald or an impostor saying he was Oswald. The automatic CIA cameras that took the pictures of an unknown American male in front of the Soviet embassy took numerous pictures of the man - 3 on 10/1, 5 on 10/4 and 2 on 10/15. These pictures were turned over to the FBI in Mexico City on 11/23/63. According to the CIA, "The CIA did not have a known photograph of Oswald in its files before the assassination of JFK either in Washington or abroad." Obviously, the CIA had no belief whatsoever that this unknown male was Oswald or an Oswald impostor. The agents in Dallas who were shown the pictures said they weren't pictures of Oswald. Most important, the supposed impostor bears no resemblance whatsoever to Oswald! One would THINK that people engaged in a grand, world-wide conspiracy to kill JFK while framing Oswald would at least get a person that even slightly resembled Oswald to do the impersonation. But, no. For the JFK CTists, these randomly shot pictures tell the tale of CIA conspiring to kill JFK and frame Oswald, with AN IMPOSTOR OSWALD.

As Vince Bugliosi says in his book, "The conspiracy theorists are so unhinged that they believe Oswald's framers would use an impersonator who looks as much like Oswald as Danny de Vito."

How bad is it for the JFK CTists? So bad that they cling for 45 years to an innocent mistake made by J Edgar Hoover, a mistake that was corrected and a CT myth that was DEBUNKED the very day it supposedly happened, 45 years ago.

And so it goes.

[Sweet and Spicy]

132. I didn't say Oswald wasn't in Mexico...and wat happened to the tapes and photo in Win Scott's safe?

Oswald was in Mexico, AND someone tried to put words in his mouth to the effect that "The Cubans have my address".

Did you read the Lopez report? No, LN. Apparently, you did not.
If, as we both know, Oswald was in Mexico...then where are the photos? And where are the tapes with the voice of the real Oswald?

Oops, Win Scott's safe was destroyed in 1996. I forgot.
Did you forget too? Any idea why his safe was destroyed?

Took you a while to browse McAdams for a response (though completely unsatisfactory) to the impostor question.

[stopbush]

136. Let's see, you're batting 0 for 4 (or is it 5?) but you're back for more.

The Lopez report. Yep, it took a long time for it to finally get declassified in 1996, and it was a HUGE disappointment to the CTists because it stated that "the Warren Commission correctly established that Oswald traveled to Mexico City." As far as the impostor, it concluded, "While the majority of the evidence tends to indicate that (the individual who visited the Cuban consulate and the Soviet embassy on the dates in question) WAS INDEED Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey Oswald's name during this time in contacts with the Soviet and Cuban Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed."

Wow. That's it. That's the proof? "Cannot be absolutely dismissed?", as in, "but can for the most part be dismissed?" And nowhere in the 393-page Lopez Report does Lopez offer any rationale for an impostor Oswald being in MC at the same time as Oswald.

This is getting tedious with you. You write a few stupid sentences, I spend my valuable time demolishing your tripe. Your non-responses don't address the evidence presented against you, but they always include a new regurgitation of a long ago laughed-out-of-contention CT idiocy.

I think I'm done with you. It's kill-file time for you.

Don't forget to make that donation to DU, nube.

[Sweet and Spicy]

143. Again, you pretend that I said Oswald didn't visit the embassies...but you know that's not the case

Nobody is denying the fact that Oswald visited the embassy, but you are playing dumb because it's not convenient for you to talk about the phone call in which a person (whose voice was not that of Oswald's) said something to the effect that "Cuba knows my address." You have addressed that phone call a number of zero times, and at one point you falsely claimed that Hoover's impostor statements had not taken place during a phone call with Lyndon B. Johnson.

You are welcome to make up fake "0 for 4" baseball analogies, but you know that the one who is in a slump is you. You

-Lied about there being a phone call between LBJ and Hoover
-Ignored the phone call from the non-Oswald man to the embassy.
-Ignored the contents of Win Scott's safe.
-Won't dare say where the photos of the real Oswald are.

Again, Oswald was there. But why did the CIA choose to hide his photos? I have no idea why. Do you?

[Octafish]

134. Don't refer to John M. Newman as ''wacko CTist.''

A veteran officer of Army intel. A professor at West Point and Maryland. A historian of the first rank -- talking Herodotus here. The guy is a national treasure.

See what I mean: Here's what he has to say about Oswald in Mexico City.

If you're interested in learning how we have become slaves to the War Party that runs the military-industrial-intel-police complex, "JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power" and "Oswald and the CIA" are must-reads.

[Sweet and Spicy]

135. Thanks for schooling my friend on the background of John Newman

We appreciate it.

[Octafish]

141. You are most welcome, Sweet and Spicy!

And a hearty welcome to DU! Going by your posts above, you are most learned in the subjects Dr. Newman discusses. We really are fortunate to benefit from his books -- personally and nationally.

[Bolo Boffin]

139. Is "CT wacko" more to your tastes? n/t

[Octafish]

142. Call me a ''wacko'' or ''CTist,'' I don't care which when it comes to my country.

I swore an oath to defend my country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That includes the killers of President Kennedy.
And that is why I'll continue working until they are brought to justice.

While I don't know who they are, there are leads that connect to people who are still alive. We should ask them.

Why you go ballistic when I bring that up is your problem.

[Bolo Boffin]

145. Are you John Newman? No? Then stop implying I called you a name.

Why you go ballistic when I point out your faulty arguments and misuse of evidence, I don't know. I would want someone to point out when I've wandered from the truth. Your stated goals are too important to be spreading silly theories around.

[Sweet and Spicy]

147. Wait...so you think he's a non-wacko CT even though he agrees with Newman?

That's confusing.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. These attempts to pretend I've broken DU rules are silly. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

206. 'Old box-cutter silly theory' defense! n/t

[Sweet and Spicy]

133. And yes, it was a PHONE CALL between Hoover and LBJ on Nov. 23

1963 (You said 1973, arguably because you are too frustrated to type correctly).

This is a list of PHONE CALLS from and to the White House on that day:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/LBJ_Phone_Calls

I have to give you props though. your "preliminary analysis" euphemism/invention was creative.

It is no wonder this thread has 1 recommendation. likely your recommendation.

[ControlledDemolition]

207. Hoover and Johnson benefited big time from JFK's demise! n/t

[JackRiddler]

210. You can't recommend your own thread...

So he has at least one friend on this issue.

[ControlledDemolition]

159. J. Edgar Hoover was attending a party at Clint Murchison's place on 11/21/63. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

158. The Mexico City thing was part of the Oswald sheep dipping exercise. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

157. There were two different cartridge types found at the Tippet murder scene.

Also, if Tippet was shot with a revolver, the murderer would consciously have to eject the spent cartridges. Not very smart to do this at the scene of the crime.

[ControlledDemolition]

203. He simply didn't wash his hands after taking a piss! The cheek result is the most informative! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

153. The sites had to be adjusted a fair bit before any testing on the rifle could be done. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

211. Oswald didn't go to the range, one - ONE - of his 'doubles' made a public display b4 the hit! n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

5. I know it's a 911 site, but Salandria (quoted herein) is much more convincing than VB:

The purpose of Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function, by disguising that it is the servant of factions of the ruling classes within the United States, and by pretending that the people who control it did not and could not contemplate the assassination of a democratically elected President whose recalcitrant politics fell outside their parameters.

According to Bugliosi, only the lunatic can seriously entertain that Kennedy was murdered because he pursued détente with the USSR, championed nuclear disarmament, decided not to back the invasion of the Bay of Pigs with US military might, made a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs wanted invasion and war, and decided to withdraw US troops from Vietnam rather than pursue by brute force an imperial venture in Southeast Asia. According to Bugliosi, Oswald is not just the murderer of Kennedy, he is the only one involved, and he is nothing but “a first class ‘nut.’” (945) Thus, Kennedy’s murder is deprived of any political significance whatsoever, assassinating him yet again.

Bugliosi considers himself at liberty to mock those who appreciate the truth of the opposing world view, inter alia, “conspiracy icon Vincent Salandria ‘the killing of Kennedy represented a coup d’état. ’…I suppose that since a coup d’état is defined as a sudden, unconstitutional change of state policy and leadership ‘by a group of persons in authority,’… you couldn’t even have a coup without the involvement, cooperation, and complicity of groups like the FBI, CIA, and military-industrial complex.” Individuals who entertain such notions are so wrapped up in “their fertile delusions” that they substitute finding a motive for finding evidence, make no connections between, e.g., the CIA and Oswald, and thus sadly show nothing but “this crazy, incredibly childlike reasoning and mentality that has driven and informed virtually all of the pro-conspiracy sentiment in the Kennedy assassination from the beginning.” (985-987)

This essay answers Bugliosi by showing direct involvement of the Warren Commission and the US military in the cover-up, and by demonstrating that the assassination was a state murder, without attempting at this point the far more difficult and far less important task of saying which individuals did precisely what. All of the organs of state power participated in the cover-up; indeed none could do so without confidence in the cooperation of all the others. Some did so as part of their role in the murder, some like the FBI did so reluctantly, but there were no institutional whistleblowers because the consensus of persons with political power was firmly opposed to Kennedy’s foreign policy and they used their control of the organs of state power to kill him, and then replaced his foreign policy with theirs.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html

the second paragraph, in particular, pretty well sums up the motive

also, check into Oswald and the CIA, by U. of Maryland professor John Newman, for plausible links, including documentary (IOW, hundreds of pages of documents)

[Gabi Hayes]

6. Reclaiming History from Reclaiming History: a thorough examination of a selective use of evidence

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2

this is a reallllly long link, and hard to edit into a digestible bunch, but he breaks down Bugiosi's 'strongest' prosecutorial points (and, again, this is all this book is: a 1600 page brief, based on his smarmy appearance in a TV mock trial from decades ago.)

it's very much worth reading, though, if you buy into coincidence theory.

the assassination has become a matter of dogma to most who have strong beliefs re: who did it, and I doubt anyone would be swayed. I don't think I can be persuaded that Oswald did it alone, despite the supposed incontrovertible evidence supporting his singular responsibility. it really boils down to who's grinding whose axe with whose evidence

who does one believe?

big media?

big government?

big law?

or a bunch of self-serving conspiracy nuts?

you know, the sorts of people who thought Nixon was a crook, or that Iran Contra involved the highest levels of government actors, or that Valerie Plame was outed at the highest levels of government? or that our government illegally invaded myriad other nations for lord knows what reasons?

who could possibly believe anything along those lines?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Wow, you keep smearing Bugliosi

What did he ever do to you? Did you not like his latest book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder? Is that one just a prosecutor's brief, not worth anyone's attention?

And the book manifestly is not just a prosecutor's brief. You couldn't have read it and made that statement.

[ControlledDemolition]

160. Whilst you seem to worship him! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

169. Thanks for your opinion. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

171. Amen! n/t

[villager]

7. "Without an agenda?" Riiiight....

n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

204. If the JFK 'story' unravels, so too will the 911-box-cutter theory! n/t

[Octafish]

11. Perfect. Lone Nut meme will get all the media oxygen on the 50th anniversary.

Same thing happened at 30th anniversary, with Gerald Posner's "Case Closed." Despite dozens of excellent books, including works from John M. Newman, Gaeton Fonzi, Mark Lane and Peter Dale Scott, Posner's hitjob got four-fifths of NYT's JFK assassination-related coverage.

Wish that Michael Moore would provide the antidote to Hank's latest lapdance for the military industial complex.

A good letter from those interested in the truth, not the cover-up:

Letter to New York Times Book Review
This letter appeared in the June 17 edition of the New York Times.

To the Editor:

Bryan Burrough’s laudatory review of Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the Kennedy assassination (May 20) is superficial and gratuitously insulting. “Conspiracy theorists” — blithe generalization — should according to Burroughs be “ridiculed, even shunned ... marginalized the way we’ve marginalized smokers.” Let’s see now. The following people to one degree or another suspected that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, and said so either publicly or privately:

Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon;
Attorney General Robert Kennedy;
John Kennedy’s widow, Jackie;
his special adviser dealing with Cuba at the United Nations, William Attwood;
F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover (!);
Senators Richard Russell (a Warren Commission member), and Richard Schweiker and Gary
Hart (both of the Senate Intelligence Committee);
seven of the eight congressmen on the House Assassinations Committee and its chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey;
the Kennedy associates Joe Dolan, Fred Dutton, Richard Goodwin, Pete Hamill, Frank Mankiewicz, Larry O’Brien, Kenneth O’Donnell and Walter Sheridan;
the Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode with the president in the limousine;
the presidential physician, Dr. George Burkley;
Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago;
Frank Sinatra;
and the “60 Minutes” producer Don Hewitt.
All of the above, ala Burrough, were idiots.

Not so, of course. Most of them were close to the events and people concerned, and some had privileged access to evidence and intelligence that threw doubt on the “lone assassin” version. That doubt remains today. Bugliosi himself this year joined us, Don DeLillo, Gerald Posner, Robert Blakey and two dozen other writers on the assassination in signing an open letter that appeared in the March 15 issue of The New York Review of Books. The letter focused on a specific unresolved lead, the discovery that a highly regarded C.I.A. officer named George Joannides was in 1963 running an anti-Castro exile group that had a series of encounters with Oswald shortly before the assassination.

This is obviously pertinent, yet the C.I.A. hid the fact from four J.F.K. investigations. Since 1998, when the agency did reluctantly disclose the merest outline of what Joannides was up to, it has energetically stonewalled a Freedom of Information suit to obtain the details of its officer’s activities. Here we are in 2007, 15 years after Congress unanimously approved the J.F.K. Assassination Records Act mandating the “immediate” release of all assassination-related records, and the C.I.A. is claiming in federal court that it has the right not to do so.

And now your reviewer, Burrough, seems to lump together all those who question the official story as marginal fools. Burrough’s close-minded stance should be unacceptable to every historian and journalist worthy of the name — especially at a time when a federal agency is striving vigorously to suppress very relevant information.

Jefferson Morley , Washington
Norman Mailer, Provincetown, Mass.
Anthony Summers, Waterford, Ireland
David Talbot, San Francisco

It seems like there are more people interested in the truth than plausible denial.

[TheUnspeakable]

12. I had no idea about this letter!

I just emailed Russ Baker and suggested that perhaps he could write an open letter to either Tom Hanks alone , or Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton together, and post it on Huff-po.
Huffington post is the perfect marriage of Politics and Show-biz, so who knows? I cannot bear that this crap would be the final word on what happened for generations to come.

[tom_paine]

15. Hey, if an important and attractive celebrity like Hanks says it, it must be true.

:puke:

[stopbush]

78. Gee, for someone who takes the name of a rationalist like Thomas Paine

for their DU handle, you sure don't seem to be too wedded to reality when it comes to the JFK killing.

Why so?

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Yes, the truth will get most of the attention on the 50th anniversary, Octafish

Thank you, Mr. Hanks.

[Octafish]

52. That means Poppy Bush will have answered why he was in Dallas the day President Kennedy was killed.

That's what George Herbert Walker Bush told the FBI on Nov. 22, 1963.

http://images2c.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp536%3A5%3Enu%3D4248%3E795%3E252%3EWSNRCG%3D3258%3B7%3A7%3A6343nu0mrj

Inquiring minds also will want to know why Bush waited to warn the FBI
he’d heard someone threaten the President's life until AFTER the assassination.

If the answers to these questions are in Hanks' movie, I'll watch.
Otherwise, it's just telling a story that leaves out some of the most important facts.

Thanks for reminding me, Bolo Boffin. I'll bookmark this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. You don't have any evidence that he was there when Kennedy was killed. n/t

[Octafish]

90. Not the point. Poppy has a lot to answer for - such as his friendship with George deMohrenschildt.

George Herbert Walker Bush never has explained to the public why he was on a first-name basis with the man who "befriended" the Oswalds in Dallas, George de Mohrenschildt. On the day HSCA investigators were to interview him to discuss the assassination, he "committed suicide." Bush's private contact information was in his address book. Before that sad day, de Mohrenschildt wrote a personal letter to Poppy Bush at CIA headquarters.

Here are links to some of the documents, hosted by MaryFerrell.org, copied from Uncle Sam's originals:

"Do you know this individual?" "Yes."

&rotatation=default&actualWidth=12250&orientation=portrait

"Dear George..."

&rotatation=default&actualWidth=12250&orientation=portrait

Get more on the story, scroll down at the SOURCE:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5761

So, yeah. If that film answers these questions, I'd be interested in watching. Otherwise, it's more magic bullet pabulum of plausible deniability.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Oh, your misleading statement about Poppy is my point.

And I made it.

[Octafish]

93. Nothing misleading. Those are Poppy's own words -- recorded in an FBI memo from 22 Nov 1963.

He was in Dallas that day. All I've added is to ask: What was he doing there?

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Yes, it is. You imply he was there when the assassination happened.

We continue to have this discussion because you continue to imply this factual inaccuracy.

[Octafish]

97. Why’s he merit a pass? Mr. Out-of-the-Loop is the living heart of darkness.

And it’s “Plausible Deniability” this. And “Plausible Deniability” that.

From Dallas through Vietnam through Africa through China Inc. through Rev. Moon through the October Surprise through Iran-Contra through Arming Iraq through BCCI and the Islamic Bomb through Selection 2000 through Enron Energy Policy through September 11 through WMDs in Iraq through the Multi-Trillion Wall Street Bailout.

Ya think any of Poppy’s connections with these and unmentioned more treasons and their impact on the nation since Nov. 22, 1963 will be in Hanks’ picture?



I don’t think so. They’re not covered much outside academia and international criminal law.

Almost forgot. Read my post. I state Bush was in Dallas that day. It's obvious why you keep implying I said something else.



Idit: addied links, pics and a ref to his nuttiness, Neil Bush and the Russian Mafiya.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. I never said he merited a pass. Quit misrepresenting my posts.

However, I am not misrepresenting yours. You intentionally say Bush was in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. But it takes dragging the letters and PDF's out of you to find out he was in a nearby town when he heard about the assassination and went to Dallas afterward.

You state a fact, in other words, in a misleading way. And I've corrected it enough for you that you know what you're doing. I keep saying you imply something else, not that you say something else. And that's because that's what you are doing.

As for me, I don't deify my enemies. I don't need to have the Bushes be the "living heart of darkness" to stand against their politics. That's not necessary. It's counter-productive, even.

Bush heard about the assassination, called in a tip he'd not bothered to report before (and which turned out to be nothing at all), and then went to Dallas. Now if you were being precisely factual, you would be asking this:

"Why did Bush phone in a bogus tip and go to Dallas after the assassination? What role did he have to play there?"

But that's not good enough for what you want to imply. It does accord with the facts as we know them. But that's not making him the "living heart of darkness."

So you say that he was in Dallas the day of the assassination. You let slide the fact that he went to Dallas after the assassination. That gives the misleading impression that Bush was there when it happened. You know that it does. And you don't care that it does, because after all, it's making the "living heart of darkness" look bad, isn't it?

That's my problem with you, Octafish, more than the crap conspiracy theories you keep pushing here at DU. You have no regard for the truth when it comes to Bush. All that's important is making them look bad.

I happen to think the facts make the Bushes look bad enough. But the facts aren't enough for you. You're willing to fudge the facts, misstate the facts, or toss them aside altogether if it makes the Bushes look bad.

Why don't we just stick with the facts?

[Octafish]

107. Feel free to go through my Journal. Let me know what ''crap conspiracy theories'' you find.

You are correct, I suspect Poppy. But I've never posted I knew what he was up to in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. On this thread, especially, I made clear to keep to what was in the memo. Read it yourself, it mentions he's calling from Tyler.

What I want to know is why he called the FBI to report a threat after the President was dead. I'd also like to know what were his reasons for being there at that time. I'd also like to know more about his friendship with George de Mohrenschildt.

As for Poppy being the living heart of darkness: Yeah, that's pretty harsh, coming from me, a sinner. But, he has seemed to be on the side of death and war profiteering pretty much his entire post-war career. Same with his NAZI-enabling pa, Prescott and dim son, George W. Want more links? Go to Reply #97.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. If it's in your journal, it's probably a crap conspiracy theory. Thank you, no. n/t

[Octafish]

144. Really? Apart from volunteering for USN flight school, what has Bush Dynasty done for America?

Can you think of one thing Sen. Prescott, President Poppy or Pretzeldent Smirko McCokespoon have done to make the United States a better country?

Oh. Almost forgot. I'll save you the hassle of going through my Journal. Here are selections from the BFEE:

Know your Bush Family Evil Empire

Know your BFEE: It wasn’t Obama who Looted the Treasury and Banks. It was Bush and his Cronies.

Know your BFEE: John McCain, Dim Knight Errant of the War Party

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Know your BFEE: The Corrupt Bastards Club… with Lipstick

Know your BFEE: Olympic Games Show Who’s Best Friends Forever with Authoritarians and Dictators

Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship

Know your BFEE: Forget Rev. Wright! It’s Bush and His Cronies Who Owe an Apology for Rev. Moon!

Know your BFEE: GW Bush Covers Up His Lying America Into War

Know your BFEE: Bush and His Crooks with Badges Sent an Innocent Man to Jail

Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

Know your BFEE: Bush has Killed a Million Innocent People for Their Oil.

Know your BFEE: Scions of the Military Industrial Complex

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Know your BFEE: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford Covered Up CIA Murder of American Scientist

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

Know your BFEE: They kill good soldiers like Col. Ted Westhusing for profit.

Know your BFEE: America’s Ruling Gangster Class

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and "Conspiracy Theorists" at Ford Funeral

Know your BFEE: Robert Gates did more than keep the doors open at BCCI

Know your BFEE: The Fellowship ‘Preys’ for America

Sink the BFEE: Foley gives us Congress. Condi sends 'em to prison.

Beat the BFEE: Poppy’s CIA warned about terror plots and did not stop them

Know your BFEE: Los Amigos de Bush

Know your BFEE: Neil Bush hangs out with Russian Mafiya Godfather

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.

Know your BFEE: Nazis couldn’t win WWII, so they / Bushes.

Know your BFEE: At every turn, JFK was opposed by War Party

Know your BFEE: Lies Are the Currency of Their Realm

Know your BFEE: Cheney & Halliburton Sold Iran Nuke Technology

Know your BFEE: The Stench of Moussaoui Permeates the Octopus

Know your BFEE: Moussaoui Must Die for Bush and 'His' Government

Know your BFEE: Alito is just another word for Mussolini

Know your BFEE: Like a NAZI

Know your BFEE: The China-Bush Axis

Know your BFEE: Bush and bin Laden Clans Together in Bed

Know your BFEE: Libby Is the First Big BFEE Turd to Go Down

Know your BFEE: WHIG (White House Iraq Group) made phony case for Iraq War

Know your BFEE: The Secret Government

Know your BFEE: Reinhard Gehlen

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush Armed Saddam

Know your BFEE: Killer Businessmen who put Power and Profit before Country

Know your BFEE: Nixon Threatened to Nuke Vietnam

Know your BFEE: Corrupt Craftsmen Hoover and Dulles

Know your BFEE: Poppy’s CIA Made Saddam Into the Butcher of Baghdad

Know your BFEE: Hitler’s Bankers Shaped Vietnam War

Know your BFEE: Merchants of Death

Know your BFEE: R. James Woolsey, Turd of War

Know your BFEE: Sneering Dick Cheney, Superturd-Superrich-Supercrook

Know your BFEE: Bush Lied America into War

Know your BFEE: James R Bath – Bush – bin Laden Link

Know your BFEE: War Profiteers

Know your BFEE: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Know your BFEE: Bush and bin Laden Clans Together in Bed

Know your BFEE: Rev. Sun Myung Moon OWNS Poppy Bush

Know your BFEE: Homeland Czar & Petro-Turd Bernie Kerik

Know your BFEE: American Children Used in Radiation Experiments

Know your BFEE: Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection

Know your BFEE: The Barreling Bushes

Know your BFEE: A Crime Line of Treason

Know your BFEE: How Smirko Got Rich

Know your BFEE: George W Bush did "community service" at Project P.U.L.L.

Know your BFEE: Vote Suppressor Supreme, the Turd Bill Rehnquist

Know your BFEE: George W Bush Knew 9-11 Was Coming and Did NOTHING!

Know your BFEE: Oliver North, Drug Dealer

Know your BFEE: Pat Robertson Incorporated a Gold Mine with a Terrorist


These aren’t labeled “Know Your BFEE,” but they’re meant in the same spirit:

Poppy Bush Involved in JFK Assassination -- BFEE's Spooked!

Vietnam and Iraq Wars Started by Same People

BFEE Turd Daniel Pipes tied to DANISH CARTOONS

JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

Plame Affair makes clear: USA is run by TRAITORS.

BFEE Is More than Capable of Bombing Their Own Countrymen


And for all our friends with those hard-to-reach areas between the ears:

A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission

A Short History of Conspiracy Theory

Note: Not all Bushes are evil or beholden to the BFEE, nor are all those who gain by its existence members of the immediate or extended Bush family. Nor are the Bushes at the pinnacle of global power -- it is quite likely they serve an even wealthier class. What they all have in common is the use of the powers of the government of the United States for accumulating wealth and power for themselves, their associates and the other affiliated beneficiaries among the world's financial elite and authoritarian regimes. Always, they gain at the expense of the people and nations of the world, including the citizens of the United States and its Constitution.

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Awww. Document dumps are so endearing.

You can keep pretending that pointing out silly conspiracy theories is defending Bush if you like. But that doesn't make it true.

As I say, the Bushes are bad enough on the facts. We don't have to make up shit about them. And pointing out shit being made up about them isn't defending them.

[Octafish]

149. So you haven't found in my posts even one example of ''crap conspiracy theories.''

Why, then, do you continue to write that I “made up” “shit” about them?

You also wrote “the Bushes are bad enough on the facts.”

Great, we have your word on that. So where are the facts on TV? On talk radio? In The New York Times? In the classroom?

You can’t find it. And that’s why I write about it.

[Bolo Boffin]

Get down off the cross.

It's Mark Sanford's turn.

[ControlledDemolition]

193. Not another hypocritical gay republican witch hunt, please! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

194. The crappiest one of all involves box cutters! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

177. Poppy also had a fair amount to do with the Bay of Pigs fiasco? n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

175. Nixon said of Poppy, "He'll do anything for the cause". n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

161. Nixon was there! J. Edgar Hoover was there! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

168. Who wasn't there? n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

170. Mac Wallace was there! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

172. Bill Paxton was there! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

176. E. Howard Hunt was there! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

179. Jackie Kennedy was there! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

180. David Atlee Phillips was there! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

181. Abraham Zapruder was there! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

185. H. L. Hunt was there! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

186. Lee Harvey Oswald was there! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

187. THE CIA/FBI operative Lee Harvey Oswald? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

188. No, the real Lee Harvey Oswald. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

191. Do you mean radar-operator Oswald who worked at Atsugi AFB + learned Russian on the govt's dime? n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

190. Frank Sturgis was there! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

232. James Braden was there! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

222. The Zapruder film was suppressed for ten years and manipulated before release. n/t

(Edit: Fix typo)

[MagickMuffin]

13. Bill Praxton got to see JFK in Fort Worth before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

How cool is that?!?!?!?




edit: added pic

[RagAss]

14. This would make a good scene in the production...

Soviets react to JFK murder...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpF6HwMVZUA

[MinM]

18. Re: This would make a good scene in the production...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8M9GAUUSss

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/56

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/56">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/56

[mnhtnbb]

17. Too bad. Bugliosi might be right about Bush, but I don't buy his view of the JFK assassination.

[stopbush]

19. Why not? Don't you like scientific evidence?

[mnhtnbb]

20. I like eyewitness accounts. I like scientific evidence, particularly when

it hasn't been altered or disappeared.

[stopbush]

21. Eyewitness accounts are seldom as reliable as forensic evidence, no more so

than in the JFK assassination where eyewitness accounts had JFK standing up in the limo as he was shot.

No more so than at Parkland, where some doctors thought the wound in JFK's throat was an entrance wound while other doctors thought it was an exit wound produced by a bone fragment from the head shot (neither was correct), and where no one on the medical staff noticed the entrance wound in JFK's back for the simple reason that they never turned his body over during their attempts to save his life. Some "eyewitnesses," eh? And these were medical professionals. And, of course, where no autopsy was performed to determine the number of wounds, bullet trajectories, cause of death etc.

The assertions that the scientific evidence in the JFK killing has been altered or disappeared is the stuff of delusion and fantasy, said delusions and fantasies purported by hack writers looking to make a buck off the gullibility and aversion to science of most people.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. To be fair to the doctors at Parkland

They weren't really trying to determine entrance and exit wounds, they were trying to save JFK's life. So there wasn't time for even turning him over. I'm looking forward to this documentary. "Four Days In November" is a hell of a read.

[stopbush]

26. I'm for being fair to the Parkland doctors. It's the JFK CTists

who elevate the observations these people made under great stress to the level of holy writ. But the CTists have no choice but to treat hearsay as if it were evidence, because the evidence in this particular case is all against them.

BTW - in Reclaiming History, Bugliosi cites a couple of studies which show just how unreliable ER doctors are in in determining whether bullet wounds are exit or entrance wounds. It's really quite startling to learn. That the CTists hang their hats on such hearsay is as bad as those who automatically attribute a noise in the dark to an intruder or who automatically assign an alien origin to any object in the sky that they can't quite make out.

I am also looking forward to this documentary. Here's an article from Variety on the idea behind the series:

Ten-parter will debunk long-held conspiracy theories and establish that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

HBO is wrapping up a deal to finance and air the mini, which will depict Oswald's journey to becoming an assassin and his subsequent murder on live TV by Jack Ruby.

Playtone's Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman will exec produce along with their "Big Love" star Bill Paxton.

The network will make a companion documentary special, with Bugliosi addressing myriad conspiracy theories, including those involving the Mafia, the KGB or Fidel Castro in JFK's assassination.

Project was hatched after Hanks, Paxton and Goetzman had a conversation about the shooting. They decided to look at Bugliosi's book, published last month by W.W. Norton, as the basis for a possible project.

"I totally believed there was a conspiracy, but after you read the book, you are almost embarrassed that you ever believed it," Goetzman said. "To think that guys who grew up in the '60s would make a miniseries supporting the idea that Oswald acted alone is something I certainly wouldn't have predicted. But time and evidence can change the way we view things."

Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson and wrote the book "Helter Skelter," was moved to write "Reclaiming History" after prosecuting a mock trial of Oswald for a British TV special. He walked away feeling the Warren Commission got it right and then spent the next two decades gathering evidence to prove it.

"Many more people will see the miniseries than will read the book," Bugliosi told Daily Variety.
"With the integrity that Tom, Gary and Bill bring, I think that we will finally be able to make a substantial dent in the 75% of people in this country who still believe the conspiracy theorists."

Bugliosi's deal was made by PMA Literary's Peter Miller.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117966398.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

[mnhtnbb]

28. I'm sure there are many ER docs who could cite just how unreliable medical assessments are by

attorneys.

:sarcasm:

Bugliosi wasn't there.

The magic bullet is bullshit.

[stopbush]

36. Of course, the only "magic bullets" are those proposed by the CTists.

Simple physics proves that a single bullet hit both JFK & Connally. If the bullet that exited JFK didn't hit Connally, where did it go? Did it hit the driver? No. Did it hit the driver's seat? No. The floorboards? No. Bottom line: the CTists propose that this bullet magically evaporated into thin air.

They hold the same brief for any shots that they say were fired from the grassy knoll. Where did such bullets go after striking JFK? Physics say they should have exited his head/body and hit Jackie, who was seated next to JFK along the trajectory of any such bullets. Apparently, the grassy knoll shots availed themselves of the same magical evaporation into thin air as did the shot that hit JFK in the back.

Yes, ER doctors would dispute medical assessments made by attorneys.

Disputing assessments made by certified pathologists is a different matter, is it not? Mr Bugliosi's book simply reports the FACTS of the assassination as they are laid out in the autopsy report by certified pathologists. Pathologists don't tell ER doctors how to operate on a gunshot victim and ER doctors don't tell pathologists how to perform an autopsy if that victim dies. Different fields of expertise for experts in different fields. Pretty simple stuff to understand for any rational person. Did I mention rational?

Re: Bugliosi wasn't there. So, by extension, no competent professional who wasn't at the scene of a crime as the crime happened cannot make a judgment about the crime, correct? No police officer can gather evidence because he wasn't there when the crime happened. No forensic pathologist can look at a cadaver and make determinations as to bullet wounds. And any crime that happened without an eyewitness is rendered unsolvable a priori because there were no eyewitnesses on hand to provide conflicting reports of what happened.

OK, got it.

BTW - which of the authors who wrote a JFK CT book were "there" when the killing happened? You wouldn't be holding them to a different standard, would you?

Pretty pathetic attempt at an argument, my friend.

[mnhtnbb]

54. Nellie and John Connally were both there: in the car. Arlen Specter was not.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/kennedy/single-bullet-theory.htm

http://web.lconn.com/mysterease/connally.htm

The ER docs were there. The "pathologists" brought in by the Feds were a joke. Take some time to research
their credentials.


Occam's razor, my friend. Multiple shots in straight line.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html

[Bolo Boffin]

63. You really are hung up on the magic bullet.

That is a straw man, mnhtnbb. The path of the "magic bullet" is quite straightforward. Connally's torso wound is in a straight line to JFK's back/throat wound and the line goes back to the sixth floor window of the TSBD. The wrist and the leg wounds on Connally are understandable due to the bullet being deflected at that point.

There is no "magic bullet" path. There is a common misunderstanding of how Connally and JFK were seated in the car.

[mnhtnbb]

65. Occam's Razor, I say again.

Multiple bullets in straight lines. Simple explanation.

It's like trying to make Iraq responsible for 9/11. Let's distort the facts to fit the theory
rather than look at the facts and realize one lone gunman couldn't have done it.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. But you are misapplying it.

You are convinced against the actual evidence that the wounds weren't in a straight line. THEY ARE.

There is no distortion of the facts to see that one bullet explains all of those wounds. Find out how Kennedy and Connally were actually seated in that car.

[mnhtnbb]

83. No, I'm not. Read the link.

According to the single-bullet theory, a one-inch-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet that is supposed to have done all this damage was found on a stretcher in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination.

<snip>

Regarding the bullet that he remembered impacting his back, Connally stated, "...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh."

The Warren Commission's "single bullet," according to all documentation:

* had no thread striations (fine lines etched onto a copper encased bullet tip and/or bullet side casing by clothing threads when the bullet first penetrates clothing threads),

* was marked with no blood,

* was marked with no human tissue,

* had no pieces of clothing attached,

* had lost only 1.5% of its original average weight,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

[Bolo Boffin]

85. So you agree that the trajectory is possible, then?

Most people, when they refer to the magic bullet, are talking about the trajectory. That's what I assumed you were talking about. You agree that the trajectory is correct, yes or no?

[mnhtnbb]

86. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Well, there's at least that.

What makes it unlikely for you that it happened that way?

You talk a lot about that particular bullet being able to do what it did and look the way it does now. However, some bullet did. A bullet was shot by Oswald from his gun, which passed through Kennedy and hit Connally, causing his wounds. You have to be saying that there's more to this than that wasn't the bullet, because whether it was that bullet or another one, Oswald still shot it.

[mnhtnbb]

88. I don't know that Oswald shot anybody. Nobody does since Ruby killed Oswald.

I also believe Nellie and John Connally who never believed that the bullet which hit him came through
JFK first.

According to the Single Bullet Theory, one shot passed through President Kennedy's neck and caused all of Governor Connally's wounds (he was wounded in the chest, right wrist and left thigh), and one of the shots must have missed the limousine entirely. The Connallys never accepted the theory. While they agreed with the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone, they insisted that all three shots struck occupants of the limousine.<14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory


The problem with the Connally's view is that the gun found in the Texas Book Depository couldn't have been fired quickly enough, reloaded, fired, reloaded and fired a third time to match the time frame of the shots.
Physically impossible. That's what made Specter come up with the single bullet theory--they had to have one bullet hit both people.

Me, I go back to Occam's Razor, looking for the simple explanation, which is that shots were fired
from somewhere else.

In the years since the assassination of JFK, the more you know about the CIA, the more you know that
the Agency has been involved in other assassinations around the world. It's not a leap to believe
they would participate in taking out JFK.

As I said in another post, my husband lost his library, including all the books he'd read about
the assassination of JFK. So I can't give you sources, citations, but there are others on this thread who can.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Well, you can.

The evidence against Oswald firing the shots from the sixth floor, three shots including the two that struck both Kennedy and Connally, killing Kennedy, is overwhelming.

Check out Bugliosi's summary of the evidence against Oswald. His gun, his fingerprints on the rifle, his actions before and after the assassination, being IDed by witnesses as the man in the sixth floor window shooting at Kennedy...

The actual gun used by Oswald has been tested for adherence to the time frame. Yes, it passed. There is no reloading. There is clearing the chamber for the next bullet, but that's not manually reloading the weapon.

The angle of the wounds go back to the sixth floor window. There is no "they came from someplace else." That's where they came from, where Oswald was shooting.

I really am sorry about your loss.

[stopbush]

96. How can you say the MC couldn't have got 3 shots off in 8.5 seconds

when Serviceman Miller got 3 shots off in 4.4 seconds using Oswald's rifle in the tests done for the WC?

We're talking about bullets sitting in a clip. The bolt is used to eject the spent shells. The shooter didn't have to manually reload every shot bullet by bullet. The reloading took place as the spent shell was ejected and the next bullet moved into the firing chamber.

As far as the time that it took to get off 3 shots, the clock begins running on the three shots at the instant the first shot is fired. That means that Oswald had over 8 seconds to get the second and third shots off. This simple fact evades the CTists who divide the 8.5 seconds by 3 and imagine 2.8 seconds per shot and claim that Oswald couldn't operate the bolt, relocate the target, aim and fire in such a time frame and shoot for accuracy. But the fact is that after taking the first shot, he had an average of 4.25 seconds to get off the second shot and then the third shot within the time frame established by the Zapruder film. That's plenty of time for a trained shooter, especially one of Oswald's grade. Add to that the fact that the kill shot was made at a distance of only 86 yards and that Oswald was probably siting JFK through a scope, and the conclusion one reaches is that Oswald had the time and the skill to do exactly what he did, without any assist from a secondary shooter.

[ControlledDemolition]

174. Oswald knew too much. Ruby fingered people in high positions in Washington. n/t

[stopbush]

106. Question: if the bullet that hit Connally was not the bullet that also hit JFK, then:

From which direction did it come? Connally had a wound of entry on his back. That's totally consistent with a bullet that exited JFK. In fact, any shot fired from the rear of where Connally was seated in the limo would have to pass through JFK to hit Connally as JFK's body was blocking any line of fire to Connally's back.

The bullet that hit Connally in the back could not have come from the grassy knoll because Connally never turned his back toward the grassy knoll as the shots were being fired.

The shot could not have come from the other side of Dealey Plaza because it would have had to have passed through Jackie before hitting Connally where it did.

And, Connally's wound of entry on his back was elongated, the result of the bullet yawing (tumbling) as it exited JFK's throat. If the bullet that hit Connally did not first hit JFK, what did it hit to cause it to yaw before entering Connally? Bullets from high-powered weapons traveling over 2,000 feet per second don't just start tumbling due to a slight wind.

Thanks in advance for your logical and considered replies to the above.

[ControlledDemolition]

165. What about the windsheild on the limo? Replaced to cover up that a slug had hit it from the front..

Why were the Secret Service observed washing the car at Parkland?

[ControlledDemolition]

164. Not possible at all! There were 3-4 teams on station for the shooting. n/t

[stopbush]

99. Boy, you're wrong on so much that it's impossible to know where to start.

Let's start with using Wikipedia as your primary source on the matter.

Beyond that, a full metal jacketed bullet is a bullet that is designed to pass through a person and exit their body, just as it did with JFK. That's exactly the type of bullet a professional/contract assassin would NOT use. They would use a soft-nosed bullet that would break up in tissue and cause more damage as it made its way through the victim's body. CE399 IS the kind of bullet a military man like Oswald would be familiar with, and, the 6.5 mm bullet is the ONLY ammo that the MC rifle would accept.

The bullet CE399 was not pristine. Lead was extruding from its base as seen in this photo and the bullet was bent (testimony of Dr Michael Baden for the HSCA):



Ballistics tests performed on the rifle matched CE399 to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The striations on the bullet matched it to the rifling thread in the barrel of Oswald's MC. I was not aware that clothing threads could cause striations on a full metal jacket bullet. Perhaps someone is misreading the word thread in this context.

Of course, anyone averring that CE399 was planted at Parkland must provide logical answers to these logical questions:

Why did the conspirators . . .

• Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
• Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
• Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
• Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?

[ControlledDemolition]

178. JFK also had a non-through and through wound to the neck! n/t

[stopbush]

68. Which drawing accurately depicts how JFK & Connally were seated in the limo?

A?


or,
B?




If you said "A," then you believe the magic bullet BS. Unfortunately, the A drawing is ridiculously inaccurate.

If you said "B," then you have picked the accurate depiction (in this drawing - which is based on the photographic evidence, Connally is seated on the left side of the drawing with JFK on the right. The front of the limo is left, the back of the limo is right. Connally is truning toward JFK as the shot impacts). Notice that the men are perfectly positioned for a bullet entering JFK from above and behind his right shoulder to exit his throat and hit Connally. It's a straight line from one to the other. Simple physics.

Case closed on that one. The single bullet is the only scientific explanation.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. One thing to add to that bottom picture

JFK's seat is elevated. Connally was sitting much lower than JFK.

The "magic bullet" is one of the most enduring straw men built into the conspiracy theorist's understanding of JFK's assassination, but its longevity is no testament to its accuracy.

[stopbush]

75. Yes, you're right. The photographic evidence from that day

shows Connally seated lower than JFK, as can be seen clearly in these pictures:







But even if they were on the same level (which they weren't), a bullet exiting JFK's neck had nowhere to go but into Connally. It just would have hit Connally in a lower area of his body than it did.

[ControlledDemolition]

200. Oswald throwing box-cutters is more believable than the magic bullet! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

163. There was a wound to JFK's back which was not through and through!

[stopbush]

64. The credentials of the Bethesda pathologists were fine.

Maybe you're the one who needs to do some research.

The autopsy team:

Cmdr James J Humes - Director of Laboratories of the Naval Medical School at Naval Medical Center at Bethesda headed the autopsy team. Cmdr Humes had performed many autopsies on victims of violence, suicide etc. He was certified by the American Board of Pathology in 1955 in both anatomic and clinical pathology.

His assistants:

Commander J. Thornton Boswell - Chief of Pathology at the Naval Medical School
Lt. Col. Pierre Finck - wound ballistics section of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

Others present during the autopsy:

* Rear Admiral Edward Kenney, USN, Surgeon General of the Navy
* Admiral Galloway, the Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center
* Captain John H. Stover of the Naval Medical School Humes commanding officer)
* Dr. John Ebersole, radiologist assigned to the Naval Hospital, Bethesda, who assisted with X-ray examinations which were made.

The Autopsy Chain of Command, Bethesda Naval Hospital
Autopsy, November 22, 1963 (from the top down)

Attorney General Robert F Kennedy
Executive Branch, US Government

Rear Admiral George C. Burkley, USN
Physician to the President
(Braid Status: Commander-in-Chief)

Rear Admiral Edward Kenney, USN
Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy

Rear Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, USN
Commanding Officer of the U.S. Naval Medical Center, Bethesda

Captain Robert O. Canada, USN
Commanding Officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital

Commander J. Thornton Boswell, MC, USN
Chief of Pathology at Naval Medical Center, Bethesda.

Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN:
Director of the laboratories of the National Medical School, Naval
Medical Center, Bethesda. Chief autopsy pathologist for the JFK
autopsy. Officially conducted autopsy.


The CTists would have you believe that the autopsy team was a bunch of first-year interns who were cobbled together from some campus kegger.

[mnhtnbb]

81. I just finished reading the testimony of Humes to the Warren Commission

being questioned by Specter.

His field of expertise was natural diseases.

He contradicts himself at the beginning and end of testimony as to whether
the x-rays taken in the morgue were developed there and reviewed at the time,
or whether they were taken by the FBI or Secret Service. (He had to ask Specter
for confirmation of which group took them). The photos were definitely
not developed on site and were given to the Secret Service (per Specter).

Specter leads him several times in ASSUMING ONLY THREE BULLETS were fired--caliber
and make.

Humes confirms that the wound in Kennedy's neck was enlarged by a tracheotomy. Thus, no measurement
of entrance or exit wound could be made.

Humes agrees with the assumption that Connally was shot and didn't know it by the exit of the bullet
from Kennedy's neck. Nellie Connally and John Connally have both disputed that. They both
have told the story that they turned to see Kennedy hold his neck. Then they heard another shot
and Connally was hit. The two stories don't jibe.

Humes admits that he destroyed a draft of his final report by burning it in the fireplace of his
rec room. He offers some bland reason for changing some wording as to why he destroyed the first draft.

He acknowledges that the clothing JFK was wearing was not present until the day after the autopsy.
He acknowledges that pieces of the area surrounding presumed bullet entrance or exit wounds had been cut away.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/warren_report/JamesJHumes.html

This is a career military guy being told what to do and what to say.

IMO.

[stopbush]

101. Thanks for the link to Humes' testimony. I invite everyone to click on the link

and read what he said. IMO it's not nearly as suspicious as you seem to think.

[stopbush]

116. Interesting how you question the ability of a board-certfied pathologist

with 8 years of post-certified experience - and who was Director of the laboratories of the National Medical School, Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, at the time - to perform a competent autopsy on a gunshot victim because "his field of expertise was natural diseases," while at the same time, you take the observations of the ER doctors at Parkland - who were not trained pathologists and who had no experience in determining the source and trajectory of bullet wounds and who didn't perform an autopsy on JFK - as holy writ in their descriptions of JFK's wounds and whether they were exit or entrance wounds.

Why is that?

[stopbush]

117. "This is a career military guy being told what to do and what to say."

So, he was an accessory after the fact to the murder of JFK, correct? That's what you're accusing him of being.

BTW - was he just following orders when he ordered a full-body x-ray of JFK's corpse over the objections of the family? Seems anyone looking to cover up a conspiracy wouldn't take the risk of doing a full-body x-ray that would possibly reveal multiple bullets embedded in JFK's body.

Your thoughts?

[stopbush]

118. Here ya go:

The following is from the JAMA, April 28, 1993, page 2058.

CLINICIANS' FORENSIC INTERPRETATIONS OF FATAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS OFTEN
MISS THE MARK.

The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain
fatal gunshot wound are no better than the flip of a coin,
according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The
study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot
wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists
made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the
entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets
that struck the victim.

Investigators at the Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest
University, Winston-Salem, NC, compared the postmortem findings of
a board-certified forensic pathologist with the medical records of
emergency medicine physicians, trauma surgeons, and neurosurgeons.
The study is the first to quantify the forensic acumen of these
specialists, says Vincent DiMaio, MD, a forensic pathologist and
editor of THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY.

The study's coauthors . . . investigated the fatal gunshot wounds
treated by trauma specialists at the hospital between January 1987
and June 1992. They excluded single penetrating (nonexiting)
gunshot wounds from the study.

Of the 46 cases identified, 24 had been misinterpreted by the
trauma specialists. These included 16 errors in differentiating
the exit and entrance wound, and 15 errors in determining the
number of bullets. In seven cases, the clinician had made both
types of errors.

As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often
misinterpreted--74% of the time. Of the single, perforating
gunshot wounds, 37% had been misclassified.

The researchers presented their results at the recent annual
meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Boston,
Mass.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Well, they have to, as you say.

Thanks for that link, btw. Knowing that Bugliosi spent two decades after the TV special gathering evidence and writing puts the factual inaccuracy to claims that he just retreaded his prosecutor's brief from that taping.

[ControlledDemolition]

162. I don't like doctored scientific evidence! n/t

[robertpaulsen]

25. "has anyone ever just told this story without bias, without an agenda"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh, that question wasn't rhetorical? Here's your answer, Bill:

No. Never has, never will. Doing it without conspiracy doesn't remove bias or agenda.

[JackRiddler]

27. "I'm Tom Hanks. The US Government has lost its credibility, so it's borrowing some of mine."

It's very apropos that Mr. Hanks has agreed to reprise his role as a spokesperson for the government from "The Simpsons Movie."

In the film, he voices the propaganda item used to cover the imminent nuclear bombing of Springfield. Here's the script:

Tom Hanks: (voiceover in TV ad) Are you tired of the same old Grand Canyon?

TV Dad: (bored) Here we are kids. The Grand Canyon.

TV Daughter: Oh, it's so old and boring! I want a new one, *now!*

Tom Hanks: (appears from behind bush) Hello. I'm Tom Hanks. The US Government has lost its credibility, so it's borrowing some of mine.

TV Son: Tussle my hair, Mr. Hanks!

Tom Hanks: Sure thing, son.

(laughs as he does so. Stars come out of the boy's hair. He then smiles in wonder)

Tom Hanks: Now, I'm pleased to tell you about the new Grand Canyon.

(shot changes to that of a smouldering crater)

Tom Hanks: Coming this weekend! It's east of Shelbyville and south of Capital City.

Marge Simpson: (watching ad) That's where Springfield is!

Tom Hanks: It's nowhere near where anything is or ever was. This is Tom Hanks saying, if you're gonna pick a government to trust, why not this one?

The script writers have him pegged.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Such devastating evidence you have against Hanks here.

Hanks should just pack it up and go home.

[JackRiddler]

34. It's not presented as "evidence." It's a caricature.

In my opinion, this caricature is worth reposting here, as it provides an insightful reflection on Mr. "Forrest Gump," his work and public persona. You, of course, may differ.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. So it's a content-free smear of Tom Hanks because he disagrees with you.

Well, I've come to expect no more from you.

[JackRiddler]

51. No, it's the script from "The Simpsons Movie."

Take it up with them if you don't like their depiction of Hanks as an oily pitchman for state-affirming propaganda. I happened to think it was great when I saw it, and mildly chilling. He provided his own voice for it, so kudos to him for that much honesty in the name of satire. (I'm sure the paycheck was trivial.)

I figure you're a lot more upset about it than he was.

[stopbush]

45. Glad to see you sticking with the normal ploy of the JFK CT crowd

in disputing those who look at the case from a viewpoint of the evidence...

which is to say, why resort to presenting conflicting evidence when one can reference fantasy - such as a TV cartoon - to make one's point so effectively?

Yep, you've got ol' Tom Hanks dead to rights on this one. One wonders how he goes on with his life. After all, he did star in "Turner and Hooch," and that alone renders moot any effect a series like "Band of Brothers" might have on the TV-viewing public.

[ControlledDemolition]

166. Glad to see you treat the official version as a latter day Holy Bible! n/t

[Karmadillo]

31. Will the anti-Castro pigeons be included?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

This is Bill Hicks on the JFK assassination. Not suitable for work, maybe not suitable for home, depending on your home.

[ControlledDemolition]

173. Coup! Coup! That explains all the droppings found on James Brading's jacket! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

198. If there is a heaven, Bill Hicks is there (along with JFK)! n/t

[Politicalboi]

32. Lets check out this picture to see if it is Poppy

He says he doesn't remember where he was that day. Just do the forensics on this picture and ask the old bastard how come he didn't know where he was that day. Just like 9/11, I will never beileve the governments story.

[dflprincess]

33. "I found out Vincent Bugliosi was just about to release a book which is unbelievable"

I found the book unbelievable too. (I know that's not what Paxton meant).

I hope as they get into the project they will take a serious look at other possibilites and not just spew the Warren Commission back at us.

[JackRiddler]

35. You needn't hope, as there is no chance.

The advance PR tells you the DNA for this project. Spray-on "human interest" vignettes will be applied liberally to a maudlin affirmation of the State, in keeping with the life's work of the man who co-created "Forrest Gump" and "Apollo 13."

My hope, which at least has a greater-than-zero chance of happening, is that this nonsense will never air. Preferably following a series of revelations that begin with the inevitable admission - I think 50 years is about right - that Oswald prior to 1963 was never a "defector" or a "communist" but an agent of the US intelligence services.

[stopbush]

38. Silly stuff. IMO, your "hope" is that an evidence-based series won't run because

it will probably have the effect of making a lot of people who ignorantly believe the JFK CTs feel stupid for having been taken in by a bunch of hack writers for lo these many years.

Yep, that's the ticket! Stifle an evidence-based examination of the JFK killing because it will most likely eviscerate the CTs and consign them to history's dust bin.

Well, I'm all for such an evisceration. The sooner, the better. Then, we can get on to the next evisceration of received opinion in America - the sainthood of Ronald Reagan.

[JackRiddler]

42. An "evidence based series"? Gee, why don't you just call it a documentary?

Hello? It's a fictional miniseries "based on a true story," as they say, for broadcast explicitly as entertainment. To get ratings, rent DVDs, get HBO subscribers to renew, win prizes, etc. Which is not to say it can't be right or wrong on the facts, or good or bad as a work of art (very doubtful). But all you're doing here is to repeat the program PR ("evidence based examination!") as though it's a sufficient proof in itself. Why not call it a charitable gift to the world, while you're at it? I'm sure they're planning to do it at a financial loss for the good of the nation, and Hanks will donate his share to a fashionable disease, and it's positively criminal of me to hope this particular TV series flops, right?

:eyes:

[stopbush]

43. Why not read Bugliosi's book to gain a point of reference?

It might save you a bit of embarrassment down the line.

Having read Bugliosi's book - and all of the major JFK CT books as well - the only way that I could see this series to be wrong on the facts would be for the producers to give the crazy CTs equal standing with the evidence in the case.

Thankfully, the early PR looks like that won't happen, and that the producers are actually going to go ahead as Bugliosi did in Reclaiming History and will address the CTs head on via an evidence-based rebuttal.

It will be interesting to see how this series is received by the general public. I think we already know what the reaction is and will remain from the hardcore CTists who sight unseen have already condemned the series.

[JackRiddler]

49. Have you read John Newman? David Talbott? PD Scott? Joan Mellon? Salandria?

I've read more than 20 books relating to these events, plus dozens of articles, web sites, some of the original documents, and 1,001 exchanges on, among other places, this site. I stopped years ago, satisfied with my own assessment.

I read the Warren Commission main report, Posner and all of McAdams's site, Edward Jay Epstein, Ron Rosenbaum, Chip Berlet, etc. I've consumed many hours of lectures and documentaries, including "Oswald's Ghost" etc. I've also seen the documentation or actually seen footage of the following persons dismissing the Warren Commission as a hoax: Nixon, Haig, Haldeman, E. Howard Fucking Hunt, RFK, LBJ, Commission Member Sen. Hale Boggs, Oswald, Ruby and Castro, just off the top of my head. All of whom are fucking tinfoil conspiracy theorists.

Have you read any of the books in which Garrison makes his own case? I doubt it. Now you and your buds are coming on like a Moonie pitching salvation with Bugliosi, as though only THAT is going to settle the case forever, which is what Posner already promised (and failed to deliver in 900 tendentious pages, but that looks merciful now compared to Bugliosi). Which is of course what the Warren Commission supposedly did back then.

As though anyone who doesn't pick up the tombstone of a book you demand be read NOW is "close minded." Guess what, near-50 years of JFK assassination research didn't serve as an irrelevant prologue to the final-word book you've decided to shill incesssantly, whereas you seem to think that "Bugliosi says" is a sufficient argument for settling disputes over the vast body of facts that are available to all of us (and speculation about the large body of documents that remains classified, including thousands of pages specifically about Oswald).

Well it isn't. See, you read my library list first and give me a 5-page report on each, then I'll give you a card to the Open Minded Club and read Bugliosi.

[stopbush]

My reading list on JFK doesn't mirror yours exactly,

but it does include books by Marrs, Manchester, Lane, Russell, Hartmann, DiEugenio, Sturdivan and Posner. I found Bugliosi's book to be more-thorough, evidence- and logic-based than any of them. And - in the CT authors defense - few JFK CT writers are as lame as Marrs and Lane.

My reading also includes bios by Dalleck and Goodwin. I've also read the WCR, though I admit that was years ago when I was a JFK CTist myself and I'm sure that colored my perceptions at the time.

I'd be interested in Talbott's "Brothers" if for no other reason than to read what "secret" information he has to prove that RFK was a CTist on his brother's death, as such information would fly in the face of every public statement RFK ever made on the issue, including statements he made in LA 3 months before he was killed. Without even looking, I'm going to guess that Talbott will make a claim that RFK said one thing in public and one thing behind closed doors, the public statements having the effect of toeing the government line while he himself didn't believe a word of it. Of course, the public statements are what they are - public statements - while the behind-the-door statements lack the easy access and transparency of what RFK was willing to say REPEATEDLY on the record.

I didn't know that anyone took the work of PD Scott seriously. Perhaps there's something I don't know about this pseudo-researcher and grand CT nut that you can let me in on.

I found the Newman book incredibly far-fetched from an Occam's Razor perspective. Third-person opinions gathered years after the fact elevated to the status of "fact." This book stands as the model for lame-brained conspiracy thinking on how to involve everyone in the world in the JFK killing. Compelling reading it was not.

So, no, I haven't read every book on your list, but I've probably read more than the average CTist.

As far as your not wishing to read Bugliosi's book, why not? I'm not half the JFK-obsessed person you seem to be, but even with the interest I do have, I felt an imperative to read Bugliosi's book. I wonder if you'd be as reluctant to read it if his conclusions had come out on the CT side of the debate.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Why do I need to? Am I offering one-off silly characterizations of them?

No? Then you don't have a point. Please try again.

[ControlledDemolition]

213. Riddle me this... NSM-263 and 'The Gulf of Tonkin'... DO NOT EQUATE! n/t

[mnhtnbb]

56. Good on you. Hubby got seriously into researching the JFK assassination

about 20 years ago. He also amassed a huge library and watched many videos. Unfortunately, all of it
was destroyed when our house burned down two years ago.

Nevertheless, he also came to the same conclusion. Oswald was what he said, "a patsy". Not the lone
gunman. No magic bullet per Arlen Specter.

The truth? Who knows? Certainly not the Warren Commission.

[stopbush]

69. My GOD! Will the JFK cover-up crew stop at NOTHING to keep the

awful conspiracy under wraps?

Sorry your house burned down. If I was you, I'd sue Arlen Specter. I'm sure he was behind it. Plus, I'd check Poppy's home in Maine as well. I'll bet he had the arsonists grab a few of your prized possessions for his personal use before they destroyed the pro-conspiracy evidence your hubby had amassed.

BTW - I am sorry your house burned down.

[JackRiddler]

73. So you think that mnhtnbb’s house burning down is cause for mockery and stupid jokes?

mnhtnbb said: “He also amassed a huge library and watched many videos. Unfortunately, all of it was destroyed when our house burned down two years ago.”

No one could possibly read that and think mnhtnbb is attributing the fire to foul play by conspiratorial forces. She is merely reporting the sad fact that she and her husband lost their house and her husband lost his library.

Even if she had implied a conspiratorial back story, which she absolutely did not… it takes extraordinary insensitivity and hard-heartedness on your part to start making jokes in this vein.

Show a smidgen of decency, man. What kind of person are you?

Although I don’t use the “ignore” function, this will be the last time I reply to you. Shame on you.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mnhtnbb]

84. Thanks. Some people are so insensitive. Talked to hubby at dinner

and asked him whether there was any one piece of evidence that stood out for him in coming to the conclusion
that the Warren Commission was a cover-up. His answer was the statistical improbability (verified by Lloyd's of London) of so many witnesses meeting an early demise.

[stopbush]

119. That would be this,

and it wasn't Lloyd's of London:

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)

Here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

A few other points:

1. The JFK CTists like Jim Marrs include every possible tangential person in their "death by knowledge of the JFK conspiracy" body count. For instance, Marrs' list includes one woman who was one of Kennedy's mistresses, but had no known connection with the assassination. It includes a man who was mayor of New Orleans (but who had no known connection with the assassination), and it includes the Chief Steward on Air Force One. List enough people and you're going to get a high number of "mysterious deaths."

2. If the purpose of the "clean-up squad" is to eliminate people who have knowledge of a conspiracy, recruiting people into a "clean-up squad" is a counter-productive activity. Each person recruited becomes yet another person who has knowledge of a conspiracy and might "spill the beans."

3. The fact is that any person marked for elimination by such a clean-up squad would need to be eliminated BEFORE they testified before law enforcement officials or the Warren Commission. Yet the people supposedly "accidented" or killed off are people who had already spilled the beans they supposedly held on the JFK killing. What purpose is there behind killing such a person AFTER they have talked? How does that help keep a cover-up intact on a conspiracy?

4. Most well-known conspiracy witnesses and authors are still alive. For example, of the best-known conspiracy authors who wrote books in the 1960s, Mark Lane, Edward J. Epstein, and Josiah Thompson are still alive. Sylvia Meagher is dead, but not even Marrs lists her death as "suspicious." Penn Jones died in January 1998 in a nursing home at the age of 83 after a long struggle with Alzheimer's disease. Harold Weisberg likewise died in February of 2002 after a long period of failing health. The most prominent conspiracy authors from the 70s and early 80s like David Lifton, Robert Groden, Henry Hurt, Anthony Summers, and Harrison Edward Livingstone are all still alive.

5. Marrs' list is laced with people who have a larger than average chance of a violent death: law officers, people on the edges of the underworld (strippers), people very much part of the underworld (Mafia figures), and people with a clear history of alcohol or drug abuse, or of mental illness (Rose Cheramie, Lou Staples, George de Mohrenschildt).

6. If a conspiracy was going around killing people who knew things that were dangerous to it, it would make sense that all the key witnesses would be killed quickly. But Marrs' list includes people who died as late as 1984. Given that many people associated with the assassination were at the peak of their professional careers at the time of the shooting, it's not surprising that many of them would have died within twenty years.

A rational examination of the thing "that stood out for him (your husband) in coming to the conclusion that the Warren Commission was a cover-up" reveals yet another pathetic and ill-informed acceptance of one the the most-famous (and fatuous) of the bug-eyed CTs surrounding the JFK assassination.

[ControlledDemolition]

182. Well said. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

167. The truth is out there. It was regecide pure and simple! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

39. That greater-than-zero chance, with which I agree with you on

This miniseries will air. And what you posited after, that Oswald was an agent of the US intelligence services, is ludicrous. You have no evidence for this. So that has a greater-than-zero chance of being revealed either.

[JackRiddler]

44. I'll take John Newman over Posner...

[ControlledDemolition]

183. Oswald was also an FBI informant. He warned Agent James Hosty of the plot well beforehand. n/t

[stopbush]

46. Just wondering, do you wish that Oliver Stone's JFK had never been released?

After all, that thing was - in the words of Oliver Stone - a counter-myth to what Stone believed was the "myth" of the WCR. It, also, was littered with "human interest" vignettes that had no basis in fact. It was also littered with "facts" that had no basis in fact. It was also littered with "facts" that flew in the face of established fact.

Yet, most Americans get their JFK assassination history from Stone's self-described myth.

How do you feel about that?

[JackRiddler]

50. No, because it was a good movie, whereas Tom Hanks is the King of Suck.

So, are my wishes now to be intrepreted as censorship? Does wishing make me the Grand Inquisitor oppressing Tom Hanks's free speech? Have you, contrary to your sig line, perhaps discovered that I among all people possess The Power of Prayer?

"JFK" was subjected to a preemptive bad-review campaign a year before it was even finished. All these critics and pundits wrote that of course they had not seen it, but attacked Stone anyway for what they figured would be in it.

By contrast, you've decided to provide the PR campaign for Tom Hanks's Suck with your unpaid volunteer services four years before its planned release.

FYI, I can wish whatever the FUCK I want. It's legal, see?

Yes! I CONFESS!

I wish Tom Hanks's proposed propaganda series pimping the Warren Commission's lies for the 50th anniversary of the 1963 coup d'etat FLOPS. I wish it runs overbudget and succumbs to a gaffers' strike! I hope Tom Hanks discovers he invested all of his money including the miniseries budget in a Ponzi Scheme! I hope Bill Paxton gets hemorrhoids!

Oh. MY GOD. I must be a monster!!!

[mnhtnbb]

58. ROFL

:rofl:

[stopbush]

60. I agree that JFK was a good movie, maybe even a great movie.

But it was total fiction. Oh, sure, Stone got the day and the city right, even got the murder victim right, But beyond that, not so much.

The hits Stone's film took pre-release were launched because Stone was clearly ignoring and twisting the facts in the case while averring that this was going to be a fact-based movie. I have no problem with historians and even run-of-the-mill movie reviewers taking a film-maker to task for engaging in such baloney. All of them know the power of film. Anyone concerned with historic truth now sits in horror as Stone's mythology has replaced the evidence in the JFK case for 75% of Americans.

If Hank's endeavor can provide a counter to even half of those who regard Stone's fiction as fact, then progress will have been made.

[ControlledDemolition]

184. Oliver Stone got a lot right. Even today though the coverup is still being perpetuated. n/t

[HamdenRice]

47. Still sticking with your limited hangout, huh?

Just kidding. I was browsing the "website that shall not be named" and there was this long thread about you entitled, iirc, "Jack Riddler, King of the Limited Hangout."

:hi:

[ControlledDemolition]

199. Here! Here! Although LBJ - the major benefactor - had records sealed until 2027! n/t

[stopbush]

37. Did you read it, or are you talking through your hat, as do 99% of the

people on DU who bash Bugliosi's book?

[dflprincess]

48. I read about 1/2 to 3/5 of it before finding it too annoying to go on

I've read the official story often enough and nothing he said up to that point was compelling enough to make me believe the Warren Commission wasn't a cover up and that it was worth my time to finish his book.

Both Bugliosi and the Warren Commission never set out to prove who did or did not kill JFK they started with the idea: Oswald did it all by himself, now how do we convince the public he did.

[stopbush]

57. Well, at least you're admitting that you didn't read the whole thing,

but I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're exaggerating when you aver you read even half of it.

Personally, I avoided reading Bugliosi for a long time because I just assumed that a 1600-page book written by a prosecutor would be like an eternal trip to a sub-Saharan dental clinic. But I found his writing style to be quite compelling.

Had you read the book, you would know that it is actually TWO books. The first book is called "What DID Happen," and it retraces the evidence in the case. I can see how anyone reading only this half of the book would opine that, "I've read the official story often enough," because the first half of the book is a very exacting outlaying of the scientific evidence in the assassination, and that evidence is all contained in the WCR. But let's face it, the evidence presented in the WCR is the evidence used by writers on both sides of the argument. The difference seems to be that the CTists like to quote the evidence selectively and - it must be said - mendaciously to support their hair-brained insights into the case.

I'll admit that I could have done with a shorter background chapter on Oswald, but having read the entire 295-page Oswald bio as presented by VB, I'm glad I did. Understanding Oswald as a person certainly puts into perspective his killing of JFK.

The second half of the book, "What DIDN'T Happen," is the part where VB dismantles all of the main CTs. It's also the half that includes his now-famous 53 pieces of evidence that prove beyond any doubt that Oswald was the lone shooter. I'm surprised you didn't elect to at least scan through some of this material, as it can prompt a lot of forehead hitting and "duh!" moments as one realizes the abject stupidity and illogical leaps of faith that purport to act as the foundation for every JFK CT out there.

[Big Orange Jeff]

59. "Both Bugliosi and the Warren Commission never set out to prove who..."

Sounds kinda like Bush and Rummy ordering Clarke to find a connection between Iraq/Saddam to the 9/11 attacks.

[stopbush]

61. Au contraire, the WCR specifically stated that it could NOT rule out

a conspiracy in the case. They left the door open that new evidence could emerge to prove a conspiracy, but that all of the CT "evidence" they were presented with led nowhere (and they were presented with tons of CT crap that they ran down to their inevitable nowheresville conclusions).

I'm surprised you don't know this, having "read the official story often enough."

Huh. Who knew?

[ControlledDemolition]

197. The FBI and the CIA - amongst others, e.g. James Greer & Roy Kellerman - misled the WC often. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

62. You should walk through his summary of the evidence against Oswald shooting Kennedy.

That's pretty compelling evidence.

[dflprincess]

67. I don't doubt that Oswald was involved

I just don't believe he was the only one and I don't believe he was anything but the patsy.

[stopbush]

70. If Oswald was a patsy, why did he tell so many provable lies under questioning?

Like saying he didn't even own a rifle, when the FBI did the legwork and traced the purchase of the MC rifle from a surplus company in Chicago back to Oswald before the day was out (do you know who A. Hidell was? Do you know anything about Oswald's mailbox?). A rifle that was found at his place of employment, that his wife had taken pictures of with him holding it, that his neighbor saw in her garage, that had LHO's fingerprints AND palm prints on it when it was discovered in the TSBD (and that that palm print was found on the inside portion of the gun barrel in an area covered by the stock, proving that Oswald had re-assembled the gun at some point pre-shooting. Yet, he claimed he had never owned a rifle in his life.)?

If he was a patsy, why did he shoot Officer JD Tippett, a murder that was witnessed by 10 people? Why did he pull his revolver on the officer attempting to arrest him at the Texas Theater?

How about this: Oswald's entire behavior after the assassination, before and after he was apprehended, displayed a consciousness of guilt. Not that he was a patsy (of who?), but that he did the killing.

[Sweet and Spicy]

111. I would love to have heard an audio-tape of Oswald's testimony. Of course, there is no audio tape

Not surprisingly.

[stopbush]

113. There are written transcripts, though, which was common practice at the time.

An audio tape would be no more reliable than a transcript. Both may be faked after the fact. So, if you aver that you'd like to hear an audio tape of Oswald's interrogations, then a written transcript is just as reliable. The only thing missing would be vocal inflections.

Not surprising that you don't know this.

Just another case of a CTist seeing muggers in every shadow.

[Sweet and Spicy]

121. If Oswald wasn't a patsy? What was an impostor doing in Mexico City pretending to be Oswald?

Tough question, isn't it.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. There wasn't. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

202. Indeed there was. The CIA released the photo. There was another imposter in NO and Dallas!!! n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

195. Since when do trained intelligence operatives tell the truth? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

72. JFK was only hit by two bullets, both fired by Oswald - that's seen in Bugliosi's summary

There is nothing else for anyone else to have done.

[stopbush]

74. Yes, the evidence in the case is much more riveting than

the CT nonsense.

For instance, many people who visit the 6th-floor museum at the TSBD are surprised at how close JFK was to Oswald when Oswald fired the head shot. This was quite an easy shot for a sharpshooter of Oswald's grade to pull off.

In addition, fate would have it that there was a slight upgrade to Elm Street as it ran toward the underpass. This upgrade had the effect of keeping JFK on the same line of fire in Oswald's sites even though the limo was moving away from Oswald's position in the TSBD. Ergo, Oswald didn't have to compensate for a target that on a level or downgraded street would be getting smaller and changing position. The line of fire he had when he fired the third shot was almost exactly the same as it was when he fired the second shot.

There's much more, of course, all of it so much more interesting and compelling than the CT malarky.

[chicago legal pro]

80. The military routinely gives the "sharpshooter" grade

to people going through the rifle course. It's meant to build confidence. I know I got it as well as everyone in my unit and I was certainly no "sharpshooter".

[stopbush]

94. Oswald's score book showed him hitting the target 48 out of 50 shots at 200 yards.

His instructor said he was a better-than-average shot.

BTW - what does your score book show on the rifle range? Care to share? Did you do as well as Oswald?

[chicago legal pro]

100. I don't remember my score because I didn't give a fuck.

And neither did anyone else that I knew. BTW "hitting the target" is not the same as hitting a bullseye. We were shooting at a target which was 4 feet by 4 feet. But go ahead and believe the government yarn. Isn't fortunate for Oswald that he just happened to pick a place to go to work for that Kennedy would be traveling by months later. Most assassins have to go to their victims. Kennedy came to Oswald. The parade route was changed to go by the Book Depository from the parade route map that had been published in the newspapers. What bad luck for JFK!

[stopbush]

103. Oswald shot at a target whose outline represented the head and shoulders.

Sounds different than the one you were required to hit.

And, maybe Oswald didn't know his score either, but it is contained in the USMC records and is there to put the lie to those who aver he was a bad shot.

Oswald didn't exactly "pick a place to work." He got the job at the TSBD through an acquaintance.

BTW, who said the following?: "It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States. All you'd have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there's nothing anybody could do."

That would be JFK himself, speaking to Ken O'Donnell and Jackie around 10:20 am on the morning of the assassination. I guess that "proves" that JFK himself was in on the plot to kill himself.

Further BTW - it was JFK who called off the SS agents riding on the back bumper of his limo in Dallas. More evidence that JFK himself was in on the plot to kill JFK.

Sometimes bad luck is just bad luck.

BTW - no one else gives a rat's ass what your scores were. But they would were you accused of shooting JFK.

[stopbush]

122. BTW - the motorcade route was not changed from the map

that was published in the papers. That's just another CT myth, a myth that originated with the mendacious and hapless Jim Garrison. Garrison claimed that the motorcade route that was published was changed at the last minute to take it off Main Street, taking it right in front of the sniper's nest. That's a provable lie, and here's the proof:

Garrison claimed that the map took up "five-sixths of the front page" of the Dallas Morning News of 11/22/63. Oh, really? Here's what that front page actually looked like:



Hmm. Five-sixths of the page? Not so much

Here's the map as it appeared in the Dallas Times Herald on the evening of 11/21/63, ie: the day BEFORE the assassination. Notice that the turn from Main onto Houston onto Elm is CLEARLY shown at the bottom of the diagram.




.
.
.
The Dallas papers also ran articles on the motorcade route. Here's the route in the DTH:
.
.


.
.
.

And here's the route in the DTH:
.
.
.


.
.

Finally, the fact is that the motorcade route could NOT have gone down Main Street and connected to the Stemmons Freeway. The two roads didn't connect! There was a barrier between Main and the Stemmons. JFK's limo and the entire motorcade would have had to drive over a cement barricade to get to the Stemmons Freeway from Main.

The route was designed from the start to get JFK to the Trade Mart to give his speech, and as you can clearly see from the DTH map of 11/21, that meant turning from Main onto Houston, Houston onto Elm and Elm onto the Stemmons.


Read all about the pathetic Jim Garrison and his delusions about the motorcade route here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm

[chicago legal pro]

125. If Oswald was going to shoot the best shot would have been head on

When Kennedy's car was going the slowest into the curve. The worst shot would be one from behind, through trees, as the car began to speed up to the freeway entrance. But, we could go on about this for the next 20 years. You have your view of the facts and I have mine. Maybe when the government unseals the records we can find out. But of course we will all be dead by that point. And that is the point.

[stopbush]

129. Totally wrong. How would it have been a better shot at JFK head on

when the limo was on Houston?

The windshield, the SS agent in the front passenger seat (possibly even the limo driver) and Gov Connally would all have been between JFK and Oswald, obstructing a clear shot at JFK and making the shot much more difficult that the shots that Oswald actually took. The body movement of the men seated in front of JFK alone would have made a shot while the limo was on Houston more difficult. The sun reflecting off the windshield (it was 12:30pm and the sun had come out) would have also made things difficult to see. There was a roll bar between the front seat and the back seat where JFK was seated.

In addition, had Oswald shot at the limo while it was still on Houston and missed with the first shot, the limo would have accelerated straight down Houston and out of the kill zone that Oswald had set up for himself.

No, as a trained shooter, Oswald actually did an expert job when he reconnoitered the prime kill zone in Dealey Plaza for himself. That included the fact that the limo had to slow to make the turn from Houston onto Elm, the fact that Oswald had a chance to view the positions of everyone in the limo, the positions of the motorcycles and the SS agents, that he was able to gauge the speed of the limo, and all of this for a full block while the limo was on Houston before the limo turned into the kill zone on Elm. Oswald also selected THE prime position in Dealey Plaza to set up his sniper nest - a high position with a panoramic view of Dealey Plaza and a clear and straight shooting zone on Elm.

When JFK's limo turned onto Elm, the limo drove right through the kill zone at reduced speed. Oswald now had an UNOBSTRUCTED shot at JFK, something he never had on Houston. In fact, he had a target that pretty much looked like the head & shoulder targets he scored on while a Marine. As fate would have it, Elm Street has a slight upgrade as it runs toward the underpass, and this had the effect of presenting JFK as a stationary target for the second and third shots.

As far as the trees, the trees on Elm were much smaller in 1963 and were not an issue in any sense. The played no part in obstructing Oswald's view. Furthermore, the car did NOT begin to speed up until after the fatal shot hit JFK's head. In fact, the limo slowed after the second shot (ie: the shot that struck JFK & Connally).

BTW - Oswald did take his first shot just after the limo turned onto Elm. That shot missed, most likely because Oswald was having to shoot down at a much sharper angle. By the time the limo moved down Elm into the prime kill zone, Oswald had a much better shot at the president, as is proved by the evidence of what transpired that day.

As far as the government unsealing records, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 mandates that ALL records pertaining to the assassination be made public by Oct 26, 2017. Personally, I plan on being around for that day. When the Act was passed in 1992, 98% of all Warren Commission documents had been released to the public. By the time the Board disbanded in 1998, all Warren Commission documents, except income tax returns, had been released to the public, with only minor redactions.

So sorry you missed all this. Another CT bugaboo bit the dust 11 years ago ("why are the evil conspirators keeping EVERYTHING sealed and secret??!!!"), yet 99.999% of JFK CTists aren't aware of the fact. They're still clutching their tinfoil, averring that "you have your view of the facts and I have mine," as if facts were the same as wild opinion, studied ignorance and outrageous fantasy.

And THAT is the point.

[chicago legal pro]

137. A true believer

They have an explanation for everything however convoluted. Interestingly the Warren Commission worshipers tend not to believe the government on anything else they say.

[stopbush]

138. Funny how the evidence and the actual events of the day are convoluted to you,

while your baseless opinion of what would have been a better option for Oswald rings true to you.

I'm afraid that you're the true believer in the CTs, not in the facts. You're probably just another person who doesn't hold science in high regard.

HAve fun hunting for Bigfoot. if you need help, there's plenty of it at DU these days.

[stopbush]

148. BTW, do you still stand by the "facts" you relayed above when you said,

"The parade route was changed to go by the Book Depository from the parade route map that had been published in the newspapers," considering that the newspaper clippings I provided in #122 above show that the motorcade route that was taken appeared in the newspapers as early as 11/18/63, and that it was never changed from that route as publicized on 11/18?

Is this something you consider a different take on the facts, or are you man enough to admit you were wrong on your "facts" about the motorcade route being changed?

Should I wait for an answer?

[chicago legal pro]

150. I don't care if you wait or not.

How you waste your time on this planet is up to you. The map of the Dallas Morning News doesn't show any turn on Elm. That was the map that was printed on the AM of the assassination. Is there anything the government says that you don't swallow whole?

[stopbush]

152. Remind me never to hire you as a legal pro.

Logic and reason escape you.

You said that the motorcade route was altered. It wasn't. The route was put out on 11/18/63 and appeared in the local newspapers. The Dallas Morning News ran an item as print copy on the Monday before the motorcade outlining the route of the motorcade that included the turn from Main onto Houston and the turn from Houston onto Elm.

"That was the map that was printed on the AM of the assassination," you say. What difference does it make that the map the DMN ran on the morning of the motorcade didn't show the detail of the turn onto Elm? Their detail-missing map didn't change the route of the motorcade. If they had left out the fact that Gov Connally was going to be riding in JFK's limo would it mean that he wasn't riding in the limo? The earlier reports of the motorcade route in the DMN included Elm in the route.

FYI - that detail-omitting map was the map as printed in A SINGLE NEWS SOURCE, the DMN. If the "route-altering conspirators" were so set on having a detail-missing map printed and on changing the motorcade route, why didn't the get to the staff at the Dallas Herald Tribune and have them alter their map that was printed the evening before the motorcade as well? Are you saying that the Secret Service and all of the security forces in Dallas that morning were depending on the map as published in the DMN that morning to learn the motorcade route? Are you saying that every person attending the motorcade had read the DMN and positioned themselves to watch the motorcade based on the missing detail that the motorcade would go down Elm?

Certainly, the crowds who lined Houston and Elm were well aware of the unchanged motorcade route. That would include Abraham Zapruder, who was standing on Elm as he shot his famous video. If people were under the impression from the map printed that morning in the DMN that the motorcade wouldn't be going down Elm, then why were they standing on Elm? Where were the crowds lining Main Street between Houston and the underpass if the public thought the parade route was "originally" heading down Main, as postulated by the inept Jim Garrison?

Certainly, the Secret Service and the motorcycle officers knew exactly where the motorcade route was - it was the route that was made public on 11/18, ie: four days before the president's visit. THAT WOULD BE THE ROUTE THAT WAS NEVER CHANGED. THAT WOULD BE THE ROUTE THAT WAS TAKEN THAT FATEFUL DAY.

The only possible reason to get hot and bothered about a change to the motorcade route (which didn't happen) is the implication that the change was made to bring JFK into the kill zone of the assassin, and to do so at the very last minute, so the security contingent didn't have the time to react to the change and to properly secure the motorcade route.

But that didn't happen.

The sad truth is that even knowing the motorcade route days in advance, the Secret Service failed to secure the motorcade route and to protect the president. Of course, those were different times. People were naive. Today, the TSBD and all other tall structures would be emptied out ahead of the motorcade, all windows would be closed and secured, snipers would be placed looking for potential assassins...and if a route was deemed too problematic to secure, the motorcade would be routed elsewhere.

So the question is: what hoops are YOU (ie: CLP) willing to jump through to maintain your belief in an asinine CT? Apparently, you're willing to believe a lie, even after the black-and-white evidence proving beyond any doubt whatsoever that the lie is a lie is laid out for you to see. You're willing to believe that an omission of a detail in a map as printed by a single newspaper equates to the motorcade route being altered, even when that same newspaper reported the route correctly days before the motorcade, and even when other news sources got the details of the route exactly right and published their map only a few hours ahead of the DMN. Incredible.

Fine. Just don't blame others when they discount your opinions and your grasp of what is fact and what is fantasy.

Legal pro indeed.

[ControlledDemolition]

192. You'd probably prefer a 'mobbed-up' lawyer to improve your chances? n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

196. True believers don't require facts. Believe hard enough and your prayers will be answered!

Just like FOX News, some people spew out falsehoods in the hope that some will stick. Those that do can later be used to bolster future, totally bogus, arguments.

[ControlledDemolition]

223. Totally right (in more ways than one!). Why did the Secret Service all but step down? n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

189. Bugliosi has simply not done enough research. Only two bullets... laughable. n/t

[Faygo Kid]

123. I was in Mrs. Burgoyne's 7th grade history class. Don't screw this up, people..

By 2013, not many of us will be around to remember it as it happened.

I will (I hope). I will go to my grave remembering every tiny detail of that day and that weekend.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ControlledDemolition]

215. GLD's? How about... 'Born-again-believers in box-cutters-and-lone-nuts'.! n/t

[bertman]

212. If they're gonna do a JFK assassination film, they should base it on John Davis' book:

Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[ControlledDemolition]

216. Marcello - 'the Mafia' - was a player in the hit. The mob went on to hijack 'Wall Street. n/t

[stopbush]

217. A fantasy film on the assassination has already been made - Stone's JFK.

The Playtone series will be based on the evidence (for a change!).

Won't that be refreshing!

The Marcello CT is based on the recollections of Edward Becker who claims he met with Marcello before the assassination and that Marcello expressed his displeasure with the Kennedys and his desire to kill JFK, supposedly by "getting a nut to do it." That nut would be Oswald, one assumes.

The HSCA investigated Becker's claims and found them to be groundless.

Vincent Bugliosi - who interviewed Becker in a series of 5 lengthy interviews for his book, Reclaiming History, is not nearly as dismissive of Becker as was the HSCA. Of Becker, Bugliosi writes, "To me, Becker comes across as a sensible, candid person who at least 'sounds' very believable and matter-of-fact when telling his story, and he points out that he never sought to exploit or capitalize on the story in any way. "I never took or asked for a dime for any of the interviews." He (Becker) said, "I wish he (Marcello) had never said it and I wish I had never heard it."" (Reclaiming History, pg 1170)

Bugliosi also has unkind words for the FBI and their disinterest in Becker, writing, "The main issue, then, seems to be not whether Becker met with Marcello (a strong possibility), but whether Marcello said what Becker claims he said. To the FBI's discredit, the bureau never, at any time, investigated Becker's allegations, instead making an effort to discredit him." Bugliosi goes on to say that the HSCA also embraced the FBI's view that Becker's underworld contacts made him, a priori, an unreliable witness. Bugliosi scoffs at this idea, writing that the FBI "suggested there is a presumption that anyone who has ever had any association with mob figures is most likely a liar. With that curious attitude, one wonders why the US attorney's office, in prosecutions of mob figures, routinely offers to juries the testimony of former mobsters who turn state's evidence and are frequently believed by juries."

Did the incident really happen? Bugliosi writes, "I personally give the incident no less than a 50% probability of its happening just the way Becker said it did."

Of course, the question at the heart of the issue is this: does someone always do what they say they're going to do? Even if Marcello said that he wanted to have JFK killed, did he really have it done? Bugliosi lets Becker supply that answer himself: " When I asked Becker if he believed, at the time, what Marcello said to him about intending to kill Kennedy, he chuckled and said, 'No. If the mobsters killed everyone they threatened to kill, we'd be depopulated.' "

Other evidence Bugliosi offers against the likelihood that Marcello had JFK killed include the fact well known to students of organized crime that the mob engages almost exclusively in internecine warfare. In other words, they only kill each other (as pointed out in Dean Jennings' 1967 book on Bugsy Siegel, We Only Kill Each Other.) In addition, Marcello was not one of the 9 national commission crime bosses in 1963, so it's unlikely that he could have ordered a hit of such magnitude in the first place.

Finally, FBI surveillance tapes of Marcello from 1979 have Marcello and his intimates expressing great anger at the idea that they were somehow involved in the JFK killing, an idea that was being pushed heavily at the time by newspaper columnist Jack Anderson. Interestingly, the mobsters didn't discuss the JFK shooting as part of their normal business, but as a casual afterthought, often during periods when they were sharing prostitutes. And Marcello - who wanted to deny such reports in public - wouldn't, because he realized that any word from him on the matter would have the effect of confirming the rumors, rather than dispelling them.

It's certainly a fascinating aspect of the JFK killing...and I hope it's a subject that is covered in the Hanks/Playtone series that is scheduled for 2013.

[bertman]

219. stopbush, it's been a few years since I read the Davis book, but I am absolutely positive

that Davis' account was not hinging just on Becker's comments. The book was filled with corroborative information and timelines and discussions of the myriad aspects of the assassination, including a convincing (at least to me) explanation of the strong possibility of a collaboration between Mafia bosses to get the Kennedy monkey off their backs.

To assign the preponderance of the book's premise on Becker's account does not seem accurate to me.

[stopbush]

220. You may be right. My recollection is that Davis does shoot down much of the craziness,

but that he puts forward the idea of multiple fake Oswalds. The premise is that the mob employed a bunch of fake Oswalds to stage events that could later be used to frame Oswald. That idea crashes upon the shoals of Occam's Razor and the actual evidence in the case. Davis also buys into the Mexico City "impostor Oswald," but he wavers on whether there was only the impostor or if Oswald himself was also in MC at the time (the evidence proves conclusively that Oswald was in MC at the time in question). Davis' theory also flies in the face of Becker claiming that Marcello wanted to get "a nut" to do the killing, because the Davis scenario has the "nut" being set up as a patsy, with contract assassins doing the killing. IIRC, Davis also sees sinister motives behind Jack Ruby's calls to Chicago prior to the assassination, imagining them to be calls to the mob. But the investigations of both the WC and the HSCA proved that all of the calls Ruby made were calls to the American Guild of Variety Artists, with Ruby pleading to the AGVA to enforce their rules in Dallas (Ruby was playing by the rules by hiring union strippers while his competitors were not).

Overall, it seems to me that Davis engages in a common ploy of the CTists - asserting that the assassination could have happened a certain way, without bothering to supply evidence that it did happen the way he imagines it did. While Davis may find that certain incidents or coincidences prove to him that something happened beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean it actually happened to an irrefutable doubt.

The evidence in the case - which is massive, especially considering the utter simplicity of the case as a murder case - simply overwhelms even the best-thought through "what mightas..." and "coulda happened, ifs..." that the CTists have set forth. The simple fact that every gun causes different striations on bullets works against the idea of multiple shooters, because once you have more than one shooter, you have multiple guns shooting multiple bullets which if recovered would all show different striations and, therefore, prove a conspiracy. So, if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators would be shooting knowing that a conspiracy would be proven as soon as bullets from two different guns were recovered and tested. How could anyone possibly know 1) what bullets from what gun hit JFK and Connally, 2) know that any shots that missed wouldn't ever be recovered in Dealey Plaza, and 3) know to plant a magic bullet at Parkland when they had no idea whose shots hit Connally and JFK?

I'd have to read Davis again. I also read that one too long ago to remember all the details.

BTW - wasn't some of the Davis book used as the basis of the TV series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

[bertman]

221. I believe you're correct that some of the ideas in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" were part

of Davis' theories, but I only saw a few hours of that series.

Regarding the bullet points (pun intended) that you make. You are hypothesizing that when/if the bullets were found they would have been allowed to be tested or used as evidence. What if the conspirators knew that someone inside would be there to deal with that aspect of the killing? When an assassin is aware that there are persons in place who are going to perform their functions to cover for him, why would he worry about anything other than the kill shot? If these guys were pros, which I believe they were, they knew that their role was to shoot and someone else's role was to cover up their existence. Or maybe they didn't know that specifically, but they knew that they were going to be covered for.

I believe that the Doctors and nurses at Parkland all stated that there was at least one wound with an entry point but no exit. That would have been a bullet to test; however, the story of the magic bullet was used to belie the existence of another bullet--the one that would have been in the President's body and that would have been found during the autopsy.

I have not read the Bugliosi book so I cannot address the validity of his points. I started reading "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Waldron and Hartmann, but it's a tome and I'm only just getting into it.

[stopbush]

228. The doctors at Parkland didn't even see the entracnce wound on JFK's back,

so their collective eyewitness accounts can't be taken to be reliable in any sense of the word. Nothing against them, they were ER personnel working to save JFK's life, not pathologists scientifically examining his body to determine what wounds were entrance wounds, etc.

There are a couple of gaping holes in your "clean-up crew" scenario.

First, how could the assassins - or anybody else, for that matter - possibly know how many bullets had hit JFK and from whose weapon? How could they know there were no additional bullets lodged in his torso, legs etc. This wasn't known for certain until the full-body x-ray was performed at the Bethesda hospital autopsy. Unless they had a surefire way of knowing the absolute extent of JFK's wounds WITHIN AN HOUR of him being shot, they would not be able to fabricate any evidence to corroborate any scenario they wished to put forth. Ergo, planting the magic bullet on Connally's stretcher, for example, would have been a counter-productive ploy if there was any chance at all that bullets from any gun other than Oswald's hit JFK or Connally. What good would planting a bullet from Oswald's gun do to confirm a lone shooter scenario if bullets from other guns were sitting in JFK and /or Connally? What good would it have done to plant a bullet from Oswald's rifle if his bullets hadn't been the ones to hit JFK & Connally? Yet, these conspirators were so good that they knew which bullets from which weapons hit JFK & Connally where, to the extent that they could fabricate evidence to make Oswald appear to be the lone shooter.

Second, you are proposing that a bunch of experienced assassins shot at JFK, but that none of them hit him. The only bullets that hit JFK came from Oswald's weapon. Does it make sense that of all the people shooting at JFK the gunman who the CTists call an inept shooter (Oswald) would be the only one to hit JFK, while all of the shots from the pros missed?

Third, the extent of the in-place clean-up crew necessary to clean-up the evidence from JFK's body alone would have to be immense and wide-ranging. It would have to include the entire staff of Parkland that had any contact with the body. It would have to include not only the pathology staff at Bethesda, but the Pathology staff at Walter Reed and Parkland as well, because JFK's body was headed toward Walter Reed for the autopsy when Jackie requested that the autopsy be performed at Bethesda because JFK was "a Navy man." This request was made while the plane was enroute back to DC. But before it was decided to do the autopsy in DC, there was a big argument in Dallas over who would do the autopsy. The Dallas staff asserted their jurisdiction to perform the autopsy, but the body was released because the Feds put up a big stink. But that argument could have gone the other way, which would have meant that the Parkland pathologists would have also have to have been in on any clean-up. Beyond Parkland, there was no guarantee that JFK would have been rushed to Parkland after the shooting. He could have been taken to another hospital in the area, which means the staff of THAT hospital or hospitals would have had to have been in on the conspiracy pre-shooting as well, waiting with bated breath to clean-up and dispose of evidence for the people who just killed the president.

Does it make any rational sense to believe that 3-4 pathology/medical teams at 3-4 different locations would all agree to such a thing, knowing that doing so would make all of them - whether they performed the autopsy or not - accessories to the murder of JFK? The extent of the "insiders" ready willing and able to do the clean-up work to not only cover for multiple shooters but to somehow frame Oswald is staggering. Does it make sense to believe that of all these trained medical personnel there wouldn't be a single person in the lot who was a fan of JFK and who would have refused to go along with such a nefarious plot?

Then, there are the variables that no team of assassins would have had any control over, like the trajectories of bullets after they have hit or missed a target, The assassins would have to know that no bullets shot from their weapons that hit JFK and exited his body would have been found by the general public or law enforcement officers who were in Dealey Plaza at the time, or who were part of the team that scoured the Plaza for evidence after the shooting. They would have to know that any shots that they took that missed their targets were somehow recovered and disposed of before law enforcement had any chance to find them, or before any John Q Public in the area just happened to pick one up as a souvenir. More important, the shooters would have to somehow know where each and every one of these bullets ended up after being fired from their guns to recover them in the first place, for if even a single bullet or spent cartridge casing was recovered that did not match to Oswald's rifle, the conspiracy would have been revealed.

Other variable would include things like the aforementioned request by Jackie to have the autopsy performed at Bethesda. Imagine if the conspirators had it all set up with a clean-up autopsy team ready to go at Walter Reed, only to have Jackie foil their plans while the plane was mid-flight with her innocent request for an autopsy at Bethesda? Of course, there's always the chance that the conspirators got to Jackie as well, and that they had planned the autopsy for Bethesda all along, and it was Jackie's job to steer the body away from Walter Reed and to the waiting clean-up crew at Bethesda.

So, just on the face of it, the assassin team would have plenty to worry about IF they were planning on covering their tracks by putting forward a false theory of a single shooter with that shooter being Oswald. Now, if the main goal was to kill JFK without any plan to cover-up a conspiracy and multiple shooters, then the assassin team would have absolutely nothing to worry about except killing JFK. Who cares if a conspiracy was discovered immediately if the only worry was to kill JFK? After all, the multiple shooters who assassinated Anwar Sadat didn't care that people knew it was a conspiracy. Neither did the group of Romans who killed Julius Caesar. Neither did the conspirators who helped kill Abraham Lincoln.

Finally, for such a cover-up to not only be in place before the assassination, but to evade detection for over 45 years would involve, 1) a confluence of events and personalities that was absolutely flawless in every aspect for the cover-up to have been successful upon initiation, 2) the absolute silence of every single person involved in the cover-up for the better part of 50 years, and, 3) the absence of any hard evidence being produced either knowingly or accidentally over the course of 45+ years that would refute the existing evidence in the case.

What are the REAL WORLD chances that all of the above could have happened and continues to happen? Rational people would say "nil."

What say you?

[ControlledDemolition]

225. Tell me about Division Five of the FBI (Guy Bannister etc.). n/t

[Malikshah]

218. Yawn..... will the boomer brigade (led by Hanks and Spielberg) please get over

themselves already?

Their earnestness is grating beyond belief.

[ControlledDemolition]

226. Their eagerness for fact or fiction? n/t

[Malikshah]

227. Fact or fiction is irrelevant -- it is the focus on their own generation's mania

Chewing over the same stories like so much stale vomit.

There is so much more to the world's history than WWII and the boomer era.

To paraphrase Bart Simpson...we need to "cull the herd"...

[JackRiddler]

229. I'll agree with you that this thread is in need of a magic bullet!

[ControlledDemolition]

233. Here it is.... bang! bang! bang! bang! bang! bang! bang! and possibly bang! and bang! n/t

[stopbush]

231. Yep. Who needs historians at all? It's all past history. All water under the bridge.

The historians already provided a brave and glorious end for Custer and his men at Little Big Horn. Why bother rehashing that story by examining a bunch of meddlesome evidence that might make us waste our valuable time correcting received opinion?

Same goes for the Titanic. We know from eyewitness accounts how and why it sank. Why bother with reexamining that story just because the wreck was located and the evidence at the bottom of the ocean tells a different tale.

Why bother rehashing the way that life came about on this planet when the Bible has a perfectly good tale about it that has served us well for thousands of years?

One could go on and on about the audacity of people who chew over the same stories like so much stale vomit.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of concepts out there that don't need to be re-examined, like the best way to communicate with each other, or how to get from Point A to Point B in the fastest time possible (everybody knows it's by foot. What other way is there? Idiots!).

You make a great point. Should we just shut down the internet at this point?

[Malikshah]

235. See my other posts to understand my point-- I'm a big fan of history...

hell, it's what I do for a living.

I'm not a big fan of overt self-congratulatory awareness and exceptionalism however.

Some from the Boomer generation need to get a big old glass of "get the F*(& over yourselves"

From a member of the non-generation public.

[stopbush]

230. That wouldn't be anything like a person of your generation (whatever that is)

feeling compelled to comment on a subject you're tired of, would it?

Some things are even more grating than earnestness...

[Malikshah]

234. Having suffered my adult life, starting with the self-congratulatory Big Chill

cultural orgasm up to this date... Yup--it's grating.

I'm a few years younger than the Boomers--not generation x or the like--

Just sick to death of the "Greatest Generation" Brokaw types, the Hanks/Spielberg "let's discover WWII for the masses" types, and the self-reverential boomers who believe that what they've gone through their entire lives is somehow unique to the world's experience. Why is it that we don't hear the same sort of claptrap from other "Boomer generations" from other countries of the world...some of them *did* have connections with WWII and did see a baby boom of sorts...

Nope-- the earnest self-awareness of this manufactured generation is much more grating.