JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

To those who think that Jack Ruby was "helped" into the DPD basement by evil conspirators, take a look at the video clip of an interview with James Leavelle on THIS WEBPAGE. It's quite interesting, and illuminating. (I'd heard most of Leavelle's story before; but some of these details I had not heard, which [for me] cement the story of how Ruby gained access to the DPD basement area.)

The other clips on that page are interesting as well. (You'll have to "register" to view the videos. But it's free, and just takes a minute.)

 

[Eric Paddon]

"No, I do not have any physical evidence on me. If I once had some, I am sure that the feds would have picked it up long ago."

It's there for you to study, and you're showing a strange stubborness when it comes to looking at it.

"They would all have to be witnesses if there wasn't any conspiracy, but outside of that, what else would be blackened out?"

The sources of how an intelligence agency gathers information and protecting its own personnel. You ought to know better then to make a big deal about that. Is it a "consipracy" when a reporter doesn't disclose his sources of information?

"Now assume for a minute"

Since you're making a ridiculous assumption that requires you to engage in silly speculation to explain your refusal to look at the actual factual evidence, I think the term ass-ume is quite appropriate.

"Again, I don't know what was in the CT books, and I am sure that some of them were based upon previous books too, that is only natural. You just do some additional research on another author's chapter and do it again."

The operative word I gave for these CT authors is that they *lied* and I can point to chapter and verse where they lied, which is what I must do if I'm to make accusations about their conduct which is what you're not doing when you make an accusation against the WC.

"I brought up that medical page because it mentioned that some of the papers had been 'corrected'."

Like what? As I pointed out, that medical page is defending the Warren Commission and I know because it's part of a website I've contributed to in the past.

"If authors can make stuff up, why can't the WC witnesses?"

You are once again evading to avoid unpleasant realities.

"Let's turn this around, just for kicks. Let's say that Ruby was involved, and was set up to be the hitman for LHO. Let's say that he already knew that he had cancer and was going to die anyway."

No, let's not say that, since he wasn't diagnosed with cancer for almost two years after he shot Oswald (just for starters). And will you kindly explain to me one other instance in the history of crime where a "hit man" who could never get his own parking tickets fixed, doesn't get to his designated spot until 30 seconds before his target arrives (after lingering for a long time in a building across the street) decided to kill his target on national TV while surrounded by police?

"After it happens he pretends to get really pissed, and starts screaming and yelling about what a jerk LHO is in the nightclub, and then shoots him."

Actually, he didn't scream about it. He got upset because of an anti-JFK ad placed in the newspaper the day of the assassination by a gent named Bernard Weissman, whom he wrongly thought was Jewish, and he spent an inordiante amount of time at the Dallas newspapers trying to find the committee Weissman belonged to, because he got it into his head that somehow Jews would be blamed for a climate of hate that killed Kennedy. There is also the eyewitness testimony of Ruby's sister, his associates etc. who all report the same strange behavior in Ruby in the period after JFK's murder and before he shot Oswald (during which time he was hanging out at police headquarters including Oswald's press conference, where the reporters and cops all knew who he was).

"Ok, maybe I have seen too many spy flicks,"

I think you have.

"but if there was a conspiracy, what makes anyone think that our government knows the whole truth?"

Glenn, the burden of proof is on you to say there was one using relevant evidence and not doing the speculations you indulge in. That's like saying "how do we know the world really is round?" "How do we know the government doesn't fake every satellite image of the Earth that says otherwise?" and leaving it at that. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Chris Knox]

Eric,

Given your level of knowledge regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and your willingness to make short work of the possibility that other theories might have some substance, I wonder if you would do me the service of answering the following questions for my own enlightenment:

1.) Do you concur with the Warren Commission's findings that JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck, exiting the throat at the level of his tie, without hitting any bony structure?

2.)Do you concur with the Warren Commission's finding that JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository as its diagrams display?

3.) Do you also concur with the Warren Commission's findings that these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, using a high powered rifle, later identified as a 6.5mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano?

I thank you for your time.

Chris

 

[Eric Paddon]

I concur with the WC conclusions and those revalidated by the Rockefeller Panel, Clark Panel and HSCA which revealed:

1-Three shots were fired. All by LHO and his rifle a Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th Floor with his fingerprints (this point confirmed by reexamination by HSCA prints expert Vincent Scalice)

2-One shot, the first shot missed.

3-The second shot wounds Kennedy from behind passing out above the tie (I have to check to see if there have been some new refinements on the precise trajectory line but the same principle remains) and goes on to wound Connally who could not have been hit by a separate shot given the nature of his wounds and the scar on his back. Neutron activation tests link the Connally stretcher bullet to fragments from Connally's wrist and Oswald's rifle.

4-The head shot is fired from behind. I do not have to concurr with all of the Warren Commission diagrams because some of them were prepared by staff members who never had access to the autopsy photos and x-rays and had to rely on descriptions to make their drawings and being human, some mistakes came up. It isn't WC drawings I need, it's the assessments of what the physical evidence says, and the x-rays, autopsy photos and 19 forensic pathologists say.

This does not come down to accepting the WC as a flawless document but that its basic conclusions are correct and have been validated in the years since by further study.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Eric, you have gotten way too excited about this, and I am going to have to assume that you were on the WC. Since you cannot keep this discussion civil, I am gracefully bowing out. Enjoy.

Glenn

 

[Jack Briggs]

Please, everyone, let's loosen the collars a bit.

 

[Eric Paddon]

Glenn, sorry but the problem I'm having with you is that whenever I just ask you to explain your points with reference to specific evidence it gets a little exasperating when you don't do that and instead ask me to take seriously a modus operandi of research that isn't how it's done anywhere in the busines. If that gets me exasperated, just consider how a doctor would feel if someone else was questioning a diagnosis without regard to specific medical information.

 

[Chris Knox]

Eric Paddon wrote

I concur with the WC conclusions and those revalidated by the Rockefeller Panel, Clark Panel and HSCA which revealed:

1-Three shots were fired. All by LHO and his rifle a Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th Floor with his fingerprints (this point confirmed by reexamination by HSCA prints expert Vincent Scalice)

2-One shot, the first shot missed.

3-The second shot wounds Kennedy from behind passing out above the tie (I have to check to see if there have been some new refinements on the precise trajectory line but the same principle remains) and goes on to wound Connally who could not have been hit by a separate shot given the nature of his wounds and the scar on his back. Neutron activation tests link the Connally stretcher bullet to fragments from Connally's wrist and Oswald's rifle.

4-The head shot is fired from behind. I do not have to concurr with all of the Warren Commission diagrams because some of them were prepared by staff members who never had access to the autopsy photos and x-rays and had to rely on descriptions to make their drawings and being human, some mistakes came up. It isn't WC drawings I need, it's the assessments of what the physical evidence says, and the x-rays, autopsy photos and 19 forensic pathologists say.

This does not come down to accepting the WC as a flawless document but that its basic conclusions are correct and have been validated in the years since by further study.

I was looking for answers in the 'yes' and 'no' variety but no matter...

In the matter of the first shot that is alleged by the Warren Report to have hit Kennedy in the base of the back of his neck, traversing upward through his neck and exiting the front of his throat near the tie without hitting any bony structure, it has been found that this is an anatomical impossibility, as this bullet would have to impact bony structures in order to traverse this path. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., holds a Ph.D. in physics and is also board-certified in radiation oncology. He has studied X-rays of the President's chest and performed a simple experiment. Taking the specific locations specified by the House Select Committee of Assassinations for the point of entry at the base of the back of the neck and the point of exit at the throat, he has drawn a line to represent the trajectory that any bullet would have to have taken from the point of entry to the point of exit. ANY such trajectory would intersect cervical vertebrae. A CAT scan demonstrating Mantik's experiment has been published in a splendid study of some of the most basic evidence of the case. The conclusion is that no single bullet could have accounted for both of these wounds unless cervical vertebrae were intersected. Since we know that no such damage occurred, we know that these wounds are caused by two separate bullets, and since no other wounds are found on JFK, these separate wounds must BOTH be entrance wounds. How do you account for this?

In the matter of the findings in regards to the high powered rifle that was identified as the murder weapon (6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano) and fired by one Lee Harvey Oswald, The death certificates, The Warren Report, articles in the Journal of the AMA, and other sources state that the president was killed by wounds inflicted by high-velocity missiles from a high-powered rifle later identified as the 6.5mm Carcano. The findings are based on facts that the level of extensive damage sustained by the President’s skull and brain could ONLY have been the result of high-velocity missiles. The problem is that the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-powered weapon. At a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second it classifies as a low to medium velocity weapon. Indeed the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a rifle at all. It is a carbine. The major trauma that the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high-velocity weapons. This level of trauma sustained could not have been caused from Oswald’s Carcano. How do you account for this?

The ammunition that Oswald is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round of which was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention Standards for humane conduct of warfare. It is not intended to maim. It does not explode. It generally remains in one piece. The lateral cranial X-ray of the President's head, however, displays a pattern of debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by the ammunition that Oswald was found to have used, thereby exonerating him. Also, the axis of metallic debris shown in these X-rays is inconsistent with a shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of the right temple. How do you account for this?

The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and photographs. These 40 eyewitnesses included spectators in Dealey Plaza, physicians and nurses at Parkland Hospital, Navy medical technicians and FBI agents at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who report a massive blow-out to the back of the head. These eyewitness reports are rejected on the basis of the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways. Through the employment of optical densitometry studies, the lateral cranial X-rays has been fabricated by imposing a patch over a massive defect to the back of the head, which corresponds to the eyewitness reports describing "the heel" shot. In effecting this deception, the perpetrators used material that was much too dense to be normal skull material and by looking closely at the X-ray anyone can see this for themselves. This enabled Dr. Mantik to discover what had been done. It turns out, that although not common knowledge at the time, instructions that could be followed to create composites were available in contemporary radiology publications. He was able to replicate the results in a radiology darkroom using these techniques. How do you account for this?

There is extensive additional evidence in regards to the autopsy photographs having been tampered with, altered, created, or destroyed. Eyewitness reports from John Stringer, THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHER, show that the photographs of the brain shown in the official set ARE NOT those that he took at the time; from Robert Knudsen, White House photographer, who has reported having in his possession--at one and the same time--photographs that displayed a major blow-out of the President's head and others that did not; and from Saundra Spencer, who processed the photographs, who explains that she knows that they are not one in the same because they do not have the same physical markings as other photographs she processed using the same film, some of which she still possesses. So what we have are those people that took part in the photography for the autopsy claiming that parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or destroyed. How do you account for this?

There are other interesting observations to note throughout the life span of that single day that call various individuals actions into question. The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the assassination occurred on the very part that had been changed. Secret Service policies (that are always adhered to for every other instance of Presidential travel in the history of its existence) for the protection of the President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas. A photograph exists demonstrating a Secret Service Agent with a bucket and sponge washing brains and blood from the limousine at Parkland Hospital as it sat parked at the ambulance ramp. This is astonishing to say the least. This is the single most crucial piece of evidence in the entire event, a rolling crime scene on wheels, and it was promptly neutralized before Kennedy was even pronounced dead. Oswald's description in connection with the murder of patrolman Tippit was broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43p.m., yet Tippit was not shot until 1:06p.m. How do you account for any of this?

Again, I thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you on the matter.

Chris

 

[David Von Pein]

I find it somewhat interesting, Chris, that all of your inquiries in your post (#69) come directly from the mouth of James Fetzer. Most of it copied directly from his articles.

The same Mr. Fetzer who just recently published this utter nonsense, which is a
480-page mess claiming that the Zapruder Film has been altered and is a complete hoax.

Most of Fetzer's ridiculous claims in this book have been shown, one by one, to be false and based on shoddy research.

This webpage (plus others on that site on the subject of Mr. Fetzer's works) gives a good example of how preposterous Fetzer's assertions of a Z-Film alteration really are.

 

[David Von Pein]

Has anyone seen the new DVD version of this video (by Robert J. Groden)? ......



It's a worthy 50-minute program, which presents all the available assassination films on one program, including the rarely-seen first few seconds of the Zapruder Film, which shows three bystanders on an iron bench to the left of Zapruder's pedestal perch. (I believe two of these three persons are "The Hesters", who can also be seen in the "Wiegman Film" just after the assassination.)

Of course Groden couldn't resist spouting conspiracy several times during the running of the many films shown on the DVD. One particular moment which Groden says "proves conspiracy" had me laughing intently. .....

Upon blowing up the "Charles Bronson Film" many, many times over, Groden claims that we can see "movement in three different windows on the sixth floor of the TSBD". The only problem is (as I view it) is that this exact same type of "movement" seen in the windows can ALSO be observed as occurring on THE BRICK WALL of the Depository.

This "movement" is obviously nothing more than grain and artifacts, being produced by Bronson's moving of the camera one block away. Plus the added artifacts and deterioration that you're always going to get from blowing up an already-grainy picture many times its original size.

If anybody has this DVD I mentioned ("JFK: Assassination Files"), I'd be most interested in your take on Groden's assessments of this "movement in 3 windows" based on this grainy blow-up of the Bronson Film (Chapter 11 on the DVD).

Despite the silly claims of conspiracy every few minutes, that DVD is worth having if you're a JFK buff, because of the filmed record therein (and the clarity of those films shown).

 

[Chris Knox]

I find it somewhat interesting, Chris, that all of your inquiries in your post (#69) come directly from the mouth of James Fetzer.

What I find interesting, David, is that rather than attempt to respond to the questions I have laid out, you choose to attack a source (Fetzer) in several of the questions' credibility in regards to a subject that has not even been mentioned in my post. Not everything that I posted came from the mouth of Fetzer, I also have Bertrand Russel, Mantik, and others to thank in the construction of my post. Since I haven't even mentioned the Z-film theory that Fetzer laid out (the subject of your ENTIRE reply), I find it odd that instead of discrediting him by making short work of the items that I posted, you decide to attack him in regards to a theory of his that I have not mentioned in the post at all and is unrelated. I would think that if those individuals that I site are so easily discredited, you would have no problem picking my post apart, yet this is something you have decided not to do.

This is a common tactic for Warren Commision apologists. Rather than address the discussion head on by answering to direct questions, you circle around from another side and attack sources of the questions from other angles in an attempt to discredit everything related (and unrelated) in one motion, thereby hoping to discredit all related questions and statements by proxy. This way you feel you needn't answer the originl questions. Hell, if you want to play by those rules, you Warren Commission fellas wouldn't have a leg to stand on!

How about addressing the highly valid questions that I laid out in post #69 instead of attacking a source? I also think that his Z-film claims are ambitious and possibly innaccurate, but what does that have to do with the questions that I have laid out? Just because someone MAY be wrong in one aspect of his findings does not make everything that comes from him automaically innaccurate, otherwise we all would have been discredited for life from grade school.

Please, answer the questions, or don't answer them, but resorting to cheap character assassination tactics does not aide you in your attempt to remove the light from the post that I have made. Those questions are still staring you in the face. All you need to do is knock them over, one by one.

Chris

 

[David Von Pein]

Oswald's description in connection with the murder of patrolman Tippit was broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43p.m., yet Tippit was not shot until 1:06p.m.

Somebody's mixed up here. Oswald's description WAS indeed announced by the DPD over the police radio at just about that time, but certainly NOT in connection with Tippit's killing. The description at that point was in connection with Howard Brennan's account of what the assassin looked like just after the JFK murder.

HOW can anybody claim the DPD put out an APB on Oswald for killing Tippit at 12:43 when no officer had been slain until 1:15 PM? That's nutty.

Are you saying that the DPD knew IN ADVANCE that Tippit was going to be gunned down? Surely no one has this crazy notion.

 

[Chris Knox]

I appreciate your assisstance in helping this discussion change gears. I will be out of town for the next couple of days, but will be back in to clarify a few things that you mention.

Until then...

Chris

 

[Eric Paddon]

JFK can not have two entrance wounds as Chris claims, and yet have no exit wounds for those bullet.

Second, he has to account for where the bullet trajectory is of JFK being hit in the neck by a front shot and there is not a single ballistics expert, nor is there any bullet trajectory path that lines up to any credible location for such a shot to hit JFK, especially in light of the timing of when he is hit in that area in the Z-film.

"The ammunition that Oswald is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round of which was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention Standards for humane conduct of warfare. It is not intended to maim."

I seriously doubt there are no other documented cases of such bullets doing severe injury and death. When you have those fragments involved linked to LHO's rifle you're left with another damned spot that won't out and then you have to produce alterante bullets from an alternate rifle on your own.

"There is extensive additional evidence in regards to the autopsy photographs having been tampered with, altered, created, or destroyed."

Sorry, but this theory is garbage. The HSCA panel reaffirmed the authenticity and guess who the lone dissenter is? Robert Groden, whose competency in the ability to tell a real photo from a fake photo went up in smoke once and for all at the OJ Simpson civil defense trial.

And then let's get to common sense. Why would a sophisticated conspiracy do something that complicated when utter simplicity involves simply framing Lee Harvey Oswald by using his rifle to shoot from behind and not requiring the presence of scores of people to alter all this evidence on the fly to prove a point no one would be asking until months later. You have to make this peculiar assertion that these plotters, long before any investigation took place, would be anticipating that a junior staff member named Arlen Specter would come up with the Single Bullett Theory to begin with (or is Arlen Specter, still a US Senator, part of the conspiracy?)

This gets back to the point of why common sense logic is so against conspiracy buffs, because they can ask questions and point to alleged anomalies based on imperfect long after the fact recollections, but then their problem is they can't hammer these stories into a credible alternate scenario which is what the ultimate burden for them is.

"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the assassination occurred on the very part that had been changed."

Chris, this is a lie from the ranks of buffdom. The motorcade route was *not* changed and Dallas newspaper street maps from several days before show the actual motorcade route. There was one newspaper that printed an erroneous map, and the simple explanation of this "Changed motorcade route" has to do with a newspaper graphics guy who assumed wrong. At any rate, Dallas traffic law of the time is quite explicit about one thing: You MUST turn onto Houston Street and Elm Street to get to the freeway. You can NOT stay on Main Street to get there. Pure and simple. And as for who came up with this route to begin with three weeks ago? None other then Texas Governor John Connally, whose choice of the Trade Mart as the location for President Kennedy's speech made that route the only one possible.

When buffs talk about changed motorcade routes at the last minute, they are guilty of one of two things. One, they are careless sloppy researchers, or two they are deliberate liars and in the case of many of these authors I think the latter is more likely.

David has already dealt with the point on Oswald's description being broadcast. It came from Howard Brennan's eyewitness account dealing with the President's shooting and this description is likely why Tippit stopped Oswald to begin with.

 

[David Von Pein]

Why would a sophisticated conspiracy do something that complicated when utter simplicity involves simply framing Lee Harvey Oswald by using his rifle to shoot from behind and not requiring the presence of scores of people to alter all this evidence on the fly to prove a point no one would be asking until months later.

Bingo!
Exactly!
Precisely!

If we're to buy ANY of the "Oswald Was Set Up" bunk, we must necessaily be gullible enough to truly believe that these evil conspirators had the gonads to think that, after the completion of the crime (performed in front of hundreds of
witnesses! ----> A fact which points irresistibly AWAY from the idea of any plot in the first place), they would actually be able to completely and irrevocably remove every single scrap of evidence other than that which pointed toward Oswald firing from behind!!

Does anyone (besides myself and Eric P.) see how utterly preposterous the above plan is just on the face of it??!!

Not to mention the added snafu the conspirators will encounter after the event when all the films & photos are developed by the many photogs snapping pictures of the scene. (Or were these guys so stupid as to not realize that one or more, if not dozens, of Dealey Plaza witnesses would have cameras and be recording the event on film, thereby showing something they might not want to be shown?) *snicker*

HOW could this massive "clean up"/"cover up" possibly have been accomplished, WITHOUT the aid of so many other people that we KNOW for certain were NOT part of such shenanigans? --> Such as all of the Parkland doctors and nurses; the ambulance driver, Aubrey Rike; most, if not ALL, of the Dallas police officers involved on 11/22; Wesley Frazier; Ruth Paine (and husband); plus many others, including (probably) even Marina Oswald herself!

As I said in a previous post:
ALL ballistic evidence was traced back to being consistent with the weapon owned by Lee H. Oswald. The probability of this occurring IF there were multiple guns firing at the motorcade is probably so low to be considered virtually impossible.

I ask myself .... IF the CIA, FBI, The Mob, LBJ, or the San Diego Zoo wanted to rub out JFK, WHY would they do it in such an immensely-complicated manner, in full view of so many people (and cameras!)??

Why not just poison him somehow (as we evidently tried to do once to Fidel Castro). Or simply murder him in the West Wing itself?

Silly, you say? But why is it any sillier than all the conspiracy theories we've been getting since 1963?

I would think that the mindset of such low-life pieces of filth who would even entertain the idea of rubbing out the President would be: We're above the law, no matter what we do; and no matter how or where this assassination goes down, we'll never be blamed for it.

Why would these people (who apparently have "plausible deniability" anyway) be the slightest bit concerned WHO the killing is ultimately blamed on? They wouldn't have cared. The #1 objective would be, for whatever warped reason, to make sure the job was done and Kennedy killed. Which is another of the various reasons why, to me, this massive conspiracy involving musical caskets, faked backyard photos, head-altering surgery to hide wounds, and all the rest just doesn't hold water.
A "hit" -- such as many people firmly believe -- would (I think) have been done in a much "quieter" manner, with ZERO witnesses.

 

[David Von Pein]

For those that might give a hoot.....

Some interesting JFK assassination-related items (video & audio clips) can
be found HERE.

 

[David Von Pein]

Did anyone watch the incredibly-laughable and exceedingly-dry and boring three add-on parts to the History Channel series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"?

I find it hard to believe a first-rate outfit like A&E would even be a party to such pure speculation and foolishness.

The most laughable portion would have to be the program entitled "The Love Affair".

Judyth Vary-Baker wants us to believe that she (a 19-year-old college student) was placed into an enormously-important plan to knock off Castro. And that SHE was the one who "taught" Oswald many of the technical aspects of her cancer research work; and that Oswald actually helped in preparing the "cancer injections" before they were given to some unsuspecting prisoners (this after the plot to kill Castro fell through).

WHY would Oswald, who is far from being an M.D. or even a "scientist assistant" of any kind, be trusted with this important assignment?

And, for that matter, entrusting such stuff to this 19-year-old college kid is ridiculous as well. Surely, other more qualified cancer-research scientists were available to be "bought" and corrupted (for enough cash incentive of course).

Judyth's multiple crying jags were hilarious as well..complete with the obligatory, "Can we stop the cameras here....I can't go on...". :rolleyes

And we also have to wonder why, after a supposed plot to kill an important world leader (Fidel Castro) fell through--utilizing the vast experience of this teenaged kid--why, then, all of a sudden there seems to be an overnight about-face...and Kennedy all of a sudden is the one these conspirators want dead--instead of Castro. Pffttt!!

Even if Mrs. Vary-Baker DID know Oswald (in some capacity), that fact alone hardly "proves" anything with regards to the JFK assassination.

And the fact she makes Oswald out to be some kind of Saint....that part makes me sick! "Lee wanted to SAVE the President!". Geez.... :rolleyes

Yeah...but obviously Lee didn't want to "save" the President ENOUGH to alert any authorities to the plan before 11/22. Or enough to NOT bring his rifle with him to work that morning.

I once had torrid affairs with Earlene Roberts, Jean Hill, and Ruth Paine .... can I now get my own TV documentary next year??

Programs like "The Love Affair" make me want to vomit!

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I'm wondering how Oswald got up there in the 6th floor with a rifle. Isn't it standard practice for the Secret Service to sweep any buildings nearby and shouldn't the SS have been able to clearly spot Oswald up in that building?

Also, was there a security force on the ground in Dallas? Was it common for the President to drive in a convertible? Did he do it before?

As for the motorcade route, if I'm understanding Eric correctly, you are forced to make a right hand turn even though the road goes straight through? Was it one way?

 

[RobertR]

Did anyone watch the incredibly-laughable and exceedingly-dry and boring three add-on parts to the History Channel series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"?

My mouth was open as I watched how ready these people were to implicate Lyndon Johnson in the murder. "He gained from the JFK murder, therefore he must have been involved". Truly astounding. And it was also astounding to hear Johnson (the same Johnson who pushed for the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, The War on Poverty, etc. etc.) described as a "right wing" figure, apparently for the sole reason that he was from Texas.

 

[Jack Briggs]

You are so very correct, Robert. It was LBJ who actually pushed through the bills JFK wanted passed so badly, including the Civil Rights Act. Johnson, essentially, put the finishing touches on the Kennedy Administration. The New Frontier became the Great Society. And this makes the man a murdering fascist?