JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread (1 Viewer)

[Eric Paddon]

If LBJ, a man who was to the left of JFK in fiscal policy (JFK had no desire to implicate a "Great Society" of massive Federal spending and had always been more fiscally conservative) is somehow a "right winger" then what did that make Barry Goldwater for goodness sake?

Regarding how Oswald was in that building with a rifle. It was *not* standard practice then to sweep buildings along the parade route to the kind of degree we might see today. For a motorcade that stretched more then 20 miles from Love Field to the TSBD that kind of security was a physical impossiblity (and was so acknowledged in the television coverage that day).

There were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza. All were riding in the motorcade. As for spotting Oswald, consider that only one man, Howard Brennan, was ever able to see Oswald before and during the shooting, and his vantage point was better then others, sitting on an elevated ledge. Oswald's hiding place was very well-considered.

 

[David Von Pein]

Has anyone seen the new 2003 film, "The Commission"? All about the Warren boys of 1963-1964, starring Ed Asner as Will Fritz, Martin Landau as Richard Russell, and Henry "Laugh-In" Gibson as Chief Jesse Curry. Martin Sheen also pops up as Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach. Someone named Alan Charof plays Earl Warren. .......

http://imdb.com/title/tt0310906/

Any reviews?

 

[Glenn_J]

My fiancee' and I watched a bit of the History Channel last night and it was rather interesting. It appeared to be a British documentary (the announcer had a British accent, assumption on my part) that was made some time in the 1980s.

They were going with the multiple gunman theory and thought that the final shot came from the front. They interviewed doctors who were at the hospital and they stated that there was a large exit wound in the back of his head.

 

[David Von Pein]

...a large exit wound in the back of his head.

Yes, I know of the many doctor accounts regarding a wound at the BACK of the head (the RIGHT-rear of the head that is).

But one thing I just have never been able to reconcile in my own mind....is why the Zapruder Film does not show this massive rear-of-the-head damage immediately after Frame 313 (the moment of impact)??

Now I know films and photos (especially grainy and semi-blurry motion pictures) can be deceiving....but I challenge anyone to look multiple times at the Z-Film and say they definitely can see a REAR defect in the skull based on the head shot.

I see damage to the front-right of JFK's head, and none to the rear, which is consistent with a bullet entering from the rear and exploding out the front [exit] wound. What do you see? ..... Zapruder Film -- Fatal Shot.

But .... Let's just assume there WAS a frontal head shot from the "Grassy Knoll". Why, then didn't this fatal front shot exit out the left-rear portion of Kennedy's skull? For, if there was a shot from the right-front, then it stands to reason that this bullet should have exploded out the opposite side (meaning: the Left-Rear of JFK's head). NO witnesses saw a deficit in the left-rear area of the President's head. How come...IF a shooter was firing from JFK's right-front?





I have no explanation for all the doctors claiming to see a large rear head wound. But the Zapruder Film doesn't seem to validate these claims. (And I don't subscribe to the theory that the Z-Film has been altered. There's NO evidence that ANY of the copies of the film have been tampered with at any time.)

 

[Eric Paddon]

"I have no explanation for all the doctors claiming to see a large rear head wound"

I do. As many of them who attended JFK admitted in a 1988 NOVA documentary, their recollections were made not in the context of performing a thorough autopsy but trying to save the President's life. Their memories can not possibly be given any credence whatsoever when it clashes with the physical evidence of the photos and x-rays which are the last word on the subject of where his wounds are. Unless one buys the silly "altered body" theory which again gets back to the silliness of a too-complex conspiracy theory when simplicity requires just framing Oswald by using only Oswald's gun and shooting from behind.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I just saw this topic and thought to mention something. Just very recently (few weeks ago) CANAL + showed a French documentary on the JFK assassination with much ado. It’s done by a French journalist who has been leaving for 4 years in Dallas. They claimed that all the people talking in front of the camera are there for the first time.

Here is the basic outline as I remember and I don’t remember the names, maybe I will look at the video again later.

1-They say that a second shooter has been identified and he has left a finger print in the book depository. They give his name and I don’t remember.
2-They say that it’s all connected to LBJ. The second shooter is connected to LBJ. There is a living Texas businessman (that worked with a friend or lawyer of LBJ) that has come forward and has written a book and says how many people were killed by them and that particular hit-man.
3-They say that a guy was called on the day of shooting (people who makeup the dead, I don’t know how do you call it) and they speculate that the front wound of JFK was repaired not to emphasis that there was a shot from the front and that’s why you don’t see a big wound on the autopsy pictures.

That’s kind of all I remember now. I’m sure all this information with the name of the second shooter is available somewhere on the net in English. Remember that I’m just reporting what I saw on TV!

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I find it harder to believe the lone nut theory than a vast conspiracy. The evidence is not worth anything since it was either tainted or lost. The various character assassinations of key people to keep the truth hidden is another indication that there is much more going on. The fact of getting off 3 shots from that bolt action is incomprehensible to me, sorry. THe Magic Bullet? Don't buy it. If some of the physical evidence was still around to be examined, I might be convinced. I just can't trust anything or anyone involved in the investigation or the Warren Commission. Even documents that were unearthed are redacted and less than forthcoming.

If somehow I could believe that Harvey pulled the trigger alone, made a remarkable set of shots with the bolt action, I still believe their was a conspiracy. Its all pretty obvious.

Flame on, brothers!

 

[BrettB]

If somehow I could believe that Harvey pulled the trigger alone, made a remarkable set of shots with the bolt action, I still believe their was a conspiracy.

OK, forget what I said about catching the re-run.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

But you'll trust the conspiracy mongers who have spent the last 40 years making a living off the Kennedy assasination?

They seem to be just trying to get to the truth and encountering roadblock after roadblock. Why are the documents redacted? Why is the brain missing?

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Why is the brain missing?

I've met some of these folks selling their newsletters at Dealy Plaza, and this is a very apt question.

 

[Eric Paddon]

It's missing because Bobby Kennedy wanted it destroyed to keep it from becoming a macabre souvenir. Nothing sinister about it when we have the autopsy photos and x-rays.

In addition, conspiracy buffs are NOT encountering any roadblocks to the evidence, they are in point of fact lying deliberately about the nature of the evidence and withholding the details that can be found in the Warren Report and other investigations that prove why their conspiracy charges are nonsense to begin with.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"The evidence is not worth anything since it was either tainted or lost."

That is false. We have all of the physical evidence relevant to the investigation that is still in the National Archives to this day. Nothing tainted, nothing lost.

"The various character assassinations of key people to keep the truth hidden is another indication that there is much more going on."

Mind telling me who you're talking about? Mark Lane, the first of the major conspiracy buffs, who among other things tried to peddle fraudulent stories involving atrocites committed by US servicemen in Vietnam that never happened? Jim Garrison, whose witchhunt against an innocent man named Clay Shaw was regarded by all those who remember the real case as the worst case of proseutorial misconduct in the history of American jurisprudence? Robert Groden, the guy who only manages to be an "expert" away from JFK by becoming OJ Simpson's photo expert and making an idiot of himself in the civil trial?

"The fact of getting off 3 shots from that bolt action is incomprehensible to me, sorry."

Whether you like it or not is immaterial. That's how it happened and there are plenty of tests done that will tell you that three shots in eight seconds is perfectly plausible.

"THe Magic Bullet? Don't buy it. If some of the physical evidence was still around to be examined, I might be convinced."

All of it is there. The problem is you don't like the answers it has to tell.

"Even documents that were unearthed are redacted and less than forthcoming"

About what? We have the names of every single Dealey Plaza eyewitness who appeared before the Commission. We have all the reports conducted at the time on the rifle, the autopsy and there's nothing missing. This is a false statement, pure and simple and since you're not willing to be specific and tell us just what is missing that is supposed to cause all this doubt, I think this is just another example of conspiracy double-talk designed to obfuscate about what the real nature of the evidence is, and the lack of concrete answers to be found from buffs.

 

[David Von Pein]

The ABC-TV documentary (Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination -- Beyond Conspiracy) that aired tonight (November 20th) is one of the best JFK assassination programs I've ever seen. (Loved those 3-D models that were utilized that enable us to circle around the car at any angle.)

There really wasn't anything "startlingly new" revealed in the ABC program (other than those very nice 3-D animations of Dealey Plaza and the limousine); but it was told with great style and class (IMO).

One new tidbit of info that I gleaned from the program was when Michael Paine (Ruth Paine's husband) was interviewed. Paine tells of how Oswald showed him one of the infamous "backyard photos", which shows Lee posing with his arsenal in early 1963.

Perhaps others (including Eric P.) had known about Paine's being aware of the photo, but I don't think I'd ever heard this before.

Of course, this was a photo that "supposedly" (according to the "CT" crowd) was faked, with Oswald's face being pasted over another body. But, if Mr. Paine is being forthright, his claim of being shown the picture by Oswald himself well before November 22nd strikes down that theory of fakery right there. For, if faked, then Oswald would have never had the photograph in his possession before the assassination. (Plus there's the fact that Marina Oswald admits herself to having taken the three photos with their own Imperial Reflex camera. With Marina's statements on this, plus Mr. Paine's comments on seeing one of them, does anyone still buy the "fakery" nonsense?)

 

[Eric Paddon]

The documentary was one of the best produced on the subject, taking its place with such gems as the 1967 CBS series, the 1993 CBS special and 2000's "False Witness."

The juxtapositioning of the lies of Oliver Stone's movie with the truth, delivered in blunt terms by Jennings, offers a taste of what a real documentary dealing with Stone's garbage should be like. I was surprised though that after mentioning how Perry Russo's false testimony was the key to Garrison's entire case, Jennings didn't mention how Stone totally zapped Russo out of existence from the movie.

 

[David Von Pein]

I was surprised though that after mentioning how Perry Russo's false testimony was the key to Garrison's entire case, Jennings didn't mention how Stone totally zapped Russo out of existence from the movie.

Russo wasn't totally "zapped" from the film. Russo's name is mentioned when Garrison asks Shaw, "Do you know a Perry Russo?".

Russo, in fact, is IN the film...playing a loud S.O.B. in the bar scene 10 minutes into the film ("Die, die, you bastard!" ... and he also says: "He should get a medal for killin' Kennedy!")

 

[Prentice Cotham]

I taped the ABC program but I have yet to watch it. What do you guys make of Sam the Man Giancana's confession (or is it "confession") to masterminding both Kennedy assasinations?

 

[Eric Paddon]

There is no confession. Pure and simple.

 

[Eric Paddon]

I had to revisit this assertion once again.

"The fact of getting off 3 shots from that bolt action is incomprehensible to me, sorry."

Dr. John Lattimer, a man 89 years old, was able to do it using that very type of rifle in a demonstration on the program last night in 7.2 seconds. One second less then what Oswald needed to fire three shots.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

The norm for the German army firing a K98k Mauser bolt action rifle (loaded with 5 round stripper clips) was 20 aimed rounds per minute. This includes the time required to shove down the rounds from the stripper clips. The model 1938 Carcano uses 6 round Mannlicher clips, and LHO wouldn't have had to load a second clip. Cycling the bolt and re-aiming in 4 seconds isn't a big deal. I actually own both these types of rifles and know what I'm talking about.

Anybody in San Jose up for a 40th anniversary model 1938 Carcano demonstration tomorrow down at the county range?

 

[Prentice Cotham]

Dr. John Lattimer, a man 89 years old, was able to do it using that very type of rifle in a demonstration on the program last night in 7.2 seconds. One second less then what Oswald needed to fire three shots.

I saw that part. Of course, there was no recoil for him to deal with.