JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread - Page 8

No, that doesn't make sense at all.

I see that reasoning too often, unfortunately. Discussing theories is NOT the same as having a trial.

In our system we find it worse to have an innocent person found guilty than have a guilty person go free. We're not absolute in seeking the "truth". We're trying to do justice.
Furthermore, it's often very difficult for a single accused to prove he/she 'didn't do it', which is why our judicial system requires the proof that they did it - not the opposite.

However, when discussing theories (either scientific theories or theories about history) the same weighing does not apply. A historian who thinks that Abraham Lincoln was murdered by John Wilkes Booth is not prosecuting Booth, but is trying to find the historical truth.


Cees

How come nobody has mentioned Carlos Marcello? Remember that Joseph Kennedy was associated with a lot of Mob guys back during prohibition. I can actually swallow the theory that the mob with New Orleans boss Marcello taking the lead rubbed out JFK as retribution for Brother Bobby's mob investigations during that time. To a lot of those old time mobsters, Meyer Lansky, Lucky Luciano, etc., Joe Kennedy was one of their own. That alone could have justified getting rid of one of his heirs.

Cees, I think you are sadly missing the point. What you are saying is that the tenet that you, Eric, and others are putting forth is immune to scrutiny without a replacement tenet. That is absurd. The notion that I MUST put forth an alternate opinion in order to replace your defeated one is silly. No, this isn't a trial, but the dynamics remain unchanged. What you are attempting to set up here is akin to one child professing the existence of a monster in the swamp because of the presence of bubbles and another kid saying that he is mistaken but doesn't know what the bubbles are. The second child has no argument because he brings nothing to the table in the way of explanation, so he is wrong and the first child is right. If that's your game, then I claim victory for all conspiracy theorists worldwide right here. That is a highly-ignorant stance, yet highly expected at this point in the game.

I'll say it again:

At best, the Warren Report is one likely scenario. It is NOT definitive proof of anything. It is NOT factual in any meaningful way because the level of doubt left in the aftermath of its findings is substantial enough to indicate reasonable doubt. And it is highly unlikely that LHO would have been found guilty in any courtroom in the nation with any competent lawyer on his side. Hell, the level of circumstantial evidence against OJ Simpson was mounds above LHO and he was acquitted!


And a historian who thinks LHO might of at the very least had some help is not prosecuting the help but is trying to find the historical truth as well.

Give me a break...

Ive studied this thing quite a bit over the years, and I am 98% convinced Oswald acted alone.

Only three things have ever bothered me that I've never found a decent expalnation to (nor am I likely to since all the parties are dead):

1. Oswald shoots the president and, by sheer luck really, not only gets out of the building without getting caught, but makes it all the way to the safety of his home...

...And then LEAVES??? ON FOOT??? Where the hell was he going? He'd just gotten away scott-free with the crime of the century. You'd think he would lay low for a while? He knows the gun ISNT in his name (he uses an alias to buy it) and it will take quite a while to match any fingerprints... but he leaves the safety of his house? Doesn't make sense.

2. The president has just been shot. Nobody gets a good look at the shooter. Certainly not a good enough one (from that distance) to give an accurate APB description. Every Dallas policeman is rushing to the crime scene or the hospital.

Yet Tippet, MILES away from the crime scene, stops Oswald, who by eyewitness accounts is simply walking down the street minding his own business... WHY?

Is Tippet some sort of psychic cop? Oswald isn't carrying a Deer rifle, and he has even changed clothes since the shooting... but Tippet stops him...

I can count the number of times I have been stopped by police while I was out walking... ZERO.. NEVER has it happened to me... or anybody else I know.

Yet, with all the commotion going on that day, Tippet MIRACULOUSLY finds the shooter, miles away from the scene of the crime based on NO evidence. I'd love to see MIT run a statistical analysis of the odds of this happening given the population of the city of Dallas.

3. The president has just been shot. A Dallas policeman has also just been shot. The Entire Dallas Police force is now working those two crimes, yet dozens of Dallas police officers show up at the local movie theater when the owner calls to complain that somebody went in without paying??? You would think they had higher priorites than chasing turnstyle jumpers that particular day? And low and behold, that's the guy?

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

It doesn't, and never did - for that matter, ever make any sense to me either. That is why I suggested earlier the possibility of Oswald having a double. It helps to explain some of your questions. As to which one was the real one, and even if they caught the real one, or the actual shooter, probably goes unexplained.

I don't remember any records showing that they did a powder burn check on the one that they captured, but if he did change, and had gloves on, they wouldn't, and just not mention it. A big part of why the Warren Report either left out - or didn't know what really happened.

Glenn

Oswald did not have powder on his hands (as I recall) but did have it on his cheek, consistent with firing a bolt action rifle.

I dont see how a "double" would explain the 'most miraculous police investigation in modern criminal justice.'

Chris,

?
I have given no opinion in this thread on this matter. And what you put into my mouth is NOT what I'm saying.

No, the first child must make his point by making an assumption that seems highly probable given the known facts. So must the other child. Both must try to make as many facts known as possible. The "monster" is highly improbable.

Yes, you get it. So all he has to do then is make it damn probable, given the known facts, that such help existed and try to get as specific as possible, so other historians can judge his thesis.


Frankly, Chris, why you add "Give me a break..." at that point of the conversation, escapes me.


Cees

This "substantial" reasonable doubt you refer to has all been borne out of decades of non-stop conspiracy theories of one sort or another...NONE of which (absolutely ZERO) have been proven to be anywhere near the "truth" (and "definitive").

Where the theories of conspiracy differ from the Warren Report, of course, is rooting the information found therein in actual "evidence" and "facts" that we know about the case.

When examining the JFK case in this "factual" way, without conjecture entering into the proceedings, not only is the Warren Report an amazingly accurate and forthright document regarding the events of 11/22/1963 in Dallas....but (when examined as a whole) it's fairly certain that the Warren Report conclusions are indeed "definitive" -- as much as humanly possible in any event. Nothing is 100% certain. And the WR is no exception I suppose. But, given the unbelievably-overwhelming evidence against this one lone killer (Oswald), the conclusions reached by Mr. Warren's commission are certainly as close to "definitive" as possible. (If Oswald had lived, of course, the case against him would probably have been "100%" definitive.)

And: To truly believe that ALL of the vast amount of evidence against Oswald was somehow ALL manufactured, faked, forged, or otherwise manipulated in one manner or another (so as to implicate this innocent "patsy"), is to buy into a fairy tale far more fanciful than anything that's contained within the 888-page Warren document.

Pfftttt.
Nonsense.
The ONLY way Mr. Oswald wouldn't have been convicted (IMO) is if somehow the defense team had managed to dig deep into its bag of tricks and pulled out the 12 horrid O.J. Simpson jurors.


I rest my case, Your Honor.
Mister Mason, your witness.

Makes perfect sense to me.
You think it makes MORE sense for him to just sit around his rooming house on Beckley waiting for the cops to break in the door??

He used an alias, true. But he WORKED IN THE BUILDING from which shots were fired at the President. And was the only worker WHO WAS INSIDE THE BUILDING AT 12:30 PM to not be present at Roy Truly's roll call.

It's not going to take forever to be tracked down in this situation.

You also mentioned "Why On Foot?" would he leave the building (and later also walk to the theater). .... Well, come to think about this angle for a second: I think this little fact that Oswald WAS indeed hoofing it through the city after having just killed the President is an even further solid indication that he ACTED ALONE in the slayings of JFK and Officer J.D. Tippit.

For, IF he was working the killing in concert with others, why wouldn't he have arranged SOME type of motorized getaway transportation to get him away from Dealey Plaza?

The very fact he WAS on foot (to me) is another in a laundry list of reasons to feel he was acting all by his lonesome on Nov. 22.

Why? No doubt because, just minutes earlier, Officer Tippit heard on his radio that a suspect in the shooting at Elm & Houston matched Oswald's appearance.

If Tippit, having seen Oswald in the area, had NOT acted in some fashion, he certainly would have NOT been doing his job. In fact, many "suspects" were picked up other than Oswald that day. Lee was NOT the ONLY person picked up on the streets on 11/22.

Here again....I look at it a little differently than the pro-conspiracy buffs do. .... This other little point of Tippit stopping Oswald (in my eyes) is again more consistent with Oswald's LONE participation in the assassination. I know many people subscribe to the theory that Tippit was "in" on the conspiracy, and was supposed to "rub out" Oswald before he could talk. This, like nearly ALL other conspiracy angles, is produced totally from wholecloth, with NO evidence to support the fact that Tippit knew Oswald, or was in any way part of a plan to silence the assassin. This is just the type of thing that builds & builds, until many people (after having heard it from different sources--all without supporting evidence to back it up) begin to think there might be something to it.

But isn't it MUCH, MUCH more likely that Tippit simply was doing his job on 11/22...heard the radio description matching LHO...stopped him at 10th & Patton Streets...and was killed by the man who had just killed JFK?

It wasn't the fact he "didn't buy a ticket" that sparked such an interest. Shoe salesman John Brewer told Theater worker Julia Postal to call the police because Brewer had seen a man "acting suspiciously" on Jefferson Boulevard soon after the shooting of both JFK & Officer Tippit.

It's not surprising in the least (IMO) that many police cars would swarm the Theater in this instance...especially when you factor in that Tippit was slain just a couple of blocks from where this "suspicious" man (Oswald) was seen entering the theater.

I've never been a cop. But I know for certain they dislike (intensely) having one of their own gunned down in their city streets like a dog. I think the arsenal of cars swarming the Texas Theater makes perfect sense in this scenario. Nothing "phychic" about it. Just pure and simple "human nature" and following up an all-too-obvious citizen's tip.

I'm not familiar with the "elm & Houston" shooting. Can you provide more details on this?



True, but he had no idea there was a "roll call" and that he was the only person who missed it, since he wasn't there.

Human nature in a case like this would be to go somewhere you feel "safe" and hunker down. Usually that's your own home. Perhaps he was walking somewhere he felt "more safe" but where, and why walk? Why not just call a cab or hop a bus? I know Dallas PD were grabbing people off the street from around the crime scene, but miles away from the crime scene seems a bit of a stretch to me. Perhaps this intervening shooting you mentioned will explain it...

I'm actually not a "pro-conspiracy" guy... I think the most plausible explination is that Oswald had made himself and his leftist-leaning political ideas as known to the Dallas authorities as he had the New Orleans authorities, and it was a case of "round up the usual suspects" something not unheard of in the south in 1964. I think Oswald may have become a suspect the minute the first shot was fired. Now, whether they just got lucky and the 'usual suspect' turned out to be the guy, or somebody else committed the perfect crime and the police framed Oswald for political expediancy, and to save face, I'm not sure. Like I said, I'm 98% sure he did it. I beleive in a single gunman with no help. Whether Oswald was that single gunman... I'm not quite positive, and it's only because I am SUCH a skeptic that I don't beleive in coincidences.

This was the JFK killing.
The police radio broadcast, at one point, said "The suspect in the shooting at Elm & Houston is an unknown white male, (approx.) age 30, 5-feet-10, 165 pounds."

Eric P. .... In this passage by Erik Ha. .....

.... Erik was referring to the fact that Tippit "had no idea there was a roll call" at the Depository. Which might very well be true. I'm guessing the DPD Radio tranmissions probably didn't elaborate on the fact that Truly did a roll call and found XXX number of people missing, including Oswald.

However, Erik Ha's point is still meaningless (IMO), in the context of what was happening in Dallas on 11/22 after 12:30 PM.

Tippit was obligated to stop Oswald on the street at 1:15 PM, after just minutes before having heard the description of the "suspect in the shooting at Elm & Houston" being relayed over the police radio. A description which certainly FIT the man Tippit stopped -- Lee Oswald.

Ok... but WHERE did they get that description from? A flash of a face in a window 100 yards away and they come up with an accurate height and weight? When most eyewitnesses cant give an accurate description of the guy who runs down the street with their purse?



No... as I recall the building almost immediately began filling with police, and EMPTYING of employees. Oswald would have seen the building empty (even though he was one of the first out) and in the chaos could have very accurately assumed (as I did on September 11) that "work is done for the day". Personally, IM AMAZED hes the only one who missed the roll call. If something like this happened at the places Ive worked, you would find half the employees at a bar four hours later. The other half would be wandering around the street in a daze...



No, he had it right... The argument was made that since Oswald "missed the rollcall" he would have to begin running immidiately. My point was, he would never have KNOWN there was a rollcall, that he was the only one who missed it, and that that fact would matter in all that chaos, because HE WASN'T there to know it even occured. Thus, that isn't an argument as to why he left the safety of his home once he was "reletively safe". The rifle was ordered under an assumed name. They wouldn't pin it on Oswald for hours after he was arrested, and then only because he had the fake ID he used to buy it on his person when he was arrested.

My contention still is, if Oswald STAYS in his house, they dont link him to the shooting for DAYS later, if they EVER can. So the question remains... WHY leave? Where was he going? How was he going to get there? How did they get HIS description so quickly and perfectly? And in a city the size of Dallas, how does Tippet happen upon him the way he does? Id still love to see the statistical probablilty of Tippit happening upon the ACTUAL murderer, in a city the size of DALLAS, with THAT plain vanilla description, AFTER the murderer has reached the safety of his home... Is it POSSIBLE its just a series of coincidences? I suppose, but Im just not a big beleiver in coincidences.

Again, I think Oswald was the shooter... Im just amazed by the events AFTER the shooting. The unanswered questions I have about those events is where I feel nagging doubts about the conclusions reached by the WC.

He wasn't the only one. Many others were missing. But Oswald was the ONLY employee who was known to have been INSIDE the building at 12:30 PM who turned up missing.

I can see where you're coming from here. BUT .... If you had just killed the President just a few miles from your own residence, from your own workplace no less, wouldn't you feel like putting some Earth between yourself and the murder site (asap)? I think I might want to.

Plus -- The fact that Oswald did not live in his OWN place, alone, might have entered into his "fleeing fast" decision-making process as well.

The roominghouse he rented at 1026 N. Beckley had other tenants coming & going, plus landlady Johnson and housekeeper Earlene Roberts, who did actually see Oswald enter and leave the house at 1:00 PM on 11/22 (just as she turned on the TV to start watching the non-stop TV coverage of the assassination events). In a matter of less than 1 hour, Mrs. Roberts would be informed of the general description of the suspect AND the fact that the shots were believed to have come from Oswald's workplace.

Although, it's possible Roberts, nor anyone else at 1026 Beckley, hadn't the slightest idea that Oswald worked at the Depository, being he was so tight-lipped and quiet. However, it's quite possible that *someone* there had knowledge of where he worked. And, if so, staying there would have proven as risky as running I believe.

Sorry, Erik, I misunderstood your earlier post.

Coming into this very interesting thread late in the game, I believe in Oswald acting as a lone gunman. It's too late for me to get bogged down in a recap of the myriad of details affecting this case, but I can add to the conversation that I have in my possession the Journal of the American Medical Association articles from 1992 in which the physicians who performed the Kennedy autopsy give one of their only interviews since that event. They address all of the criticisms that have been directed their way with anger and conviction that they did the best job they could under the circumstances and correct many of the myths and outright falsehoods that have been claimed about the autopsy. The physicians who worked on Kennedy in Dallas also agreed to talk to JAMA, trusting it as a more impartial forum than is usually found in the popular media. Doctors Perry and Jenkins, who played the lead roles in the resuscitation efforts at Parkland Hospital, directly criticize Dr. Crenshaw's conspiracy claims and state directly: "Crenshaw's conclusions are just dead wrong." Can't be more forceful than that.


"JFK's death, part II-- Dallas MDs recall their memories," JAMA, May 27, 1992- Vol. 267, No. 20 page 2804.

The interview with Drs. Hume, Boswell, and Finck, who actually performed the autopsy, is too lengthy and detailed to repeat here. A partial excerpt dealing with the head wound:
"JFK's death-- the plain truth from the MD's who did the autopsy," JAMA, May 27, 1992-- Vol. 267, No.20, page 2794

I also found very interesting, and totally unnoticed elsewhere, the rarely mentioned fact that Kennedy's neck wound alone was also likely fatal. John Lattimer, M.D. writes: "Additional data on the shooting of President Kennedy," John K. Lattimer, MD, JAMA, March 24/31, 1993-- Vol.269, No.12, pages 1544-47

So Kennedy was fatally wounded from the first impact before the head shot even took place.

I found this rather interesting. .........

History Channel to air LBJ rebuttal

By FRAZIER MOORE
AP TELEVISION WRITER

NEW YORK -- In response to an uproar caused by a History Channel documentary that claimed President Lyndon Johnson was involved in the Kennedy assassination, the network will air a challenge to that program by a panel of three historians.

The special, airing 8 p.m. EDT Wednesday, is called "The Guilty Men: An Historical Review."

The one-hour program is meant to rebut last November's broadcast of "The Guilty Men," which was based in part on a book published in 2003 by Barr McClellan, who claims the law firm he quit a quarter-century ago was involved in convoluted plots that link Johnson to at least 11 deaths, including President Kennedy's.

The historians re-examining the allegations are author Robert Dallek, considered an authority on the presidency; Stanley Kutler, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin and a leading authority on 20th century American political and constitutional history; and Thomas Sugrue, an author and teacher at the University of Pennsylvania.

Former CNN newsman Frank Sesno serves as moderator of the broadcast, which will air unedited by the History Channel, the network announced Friday.

No preview of the program would be available, the network said.

The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin involved in Kennedy's death in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, but conspiracy theorists continue to advance alternative plots.

While the three historians acknowledge lingering public doubts about the Warren Commission's findings, they dispute as unfounded the theory that President Johnson was involved. Johnson was Kennedy's vice president at the time of the assassination.

The historians along with other scholars were highly critical of "The Guilty Men" last fall, and of the History Channel's decision to air it. Former aides to Johnson, along with former presidents Ford and Carter and President Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, sought an independent probe of the claims.

The network apologized on Friday to its viewers as well as Mrs. Johnson and her family for the program. It said will no longer be aired or made available on home video.

"We have a great responsibility and this time we did not live up to it," said Dan Davids, History Channel executive vice president. "We hold ourselves accountable. As we have said before, nothing is more important to us than the accuracy of our programming and the integrity of our network."

----------

Interesting, isn't it, how THC actually has issued an apology for airing that silly program late last year. Indicates what they truly think of it, huh? Otherwise, they'd be sticking by their guns.

BTW -- This ABC JFK Special was released on April 6th through mainstream
DVD outlets. If you want to see an excellent JFK documentary (sans every looney conspiracy theory known to man), then check out that ABC Special.
Or this one from 1964.

THC's credibility took a severe hit when they aired the LBJ program. Last night's program was a very good act of contrition, though, and if they follow the recommendations given by the historians on the program that they adhere to standards of evidence in the future, they will have truly made up for it.

Not much hope in that, though. The History Channel is more about ratings than history. I read with disdain last year stories in The Los Angeles Times about how THC's (not a fortunate abbreviation, there!) new management wants its producers to start using younger, "hipper," "more telegenic" experts to be used as sources for its programs. In other words, their producers are not to seek out the most qualified experts in various fields, but to get the youngest and best-looking some screen time.

Can you imagine PBS instructing the producers of Frontline to seek the expert opinions of good-looking people rather than the most qualified professionals?

As for this LBJ fiasco, The History Channel had it coming to it.

"Sorry Shelby Foote, you are too old and gray for us. We're going to interview Posh Spice about the Battle of Vicksburg....."



In the Miata forum I habituate they are always abbreviating limited-slip differential.....

Dennis, I'm almost positive you read VLSD. Not all have one either.

Actually early Miatas have a viscous LSD, whereas the later models have the preferred Torsen LSD. Both were options in any event.

Back to the JFK shooting.... when I get some more time I really want to go give my Carcano a try.

Dennis Nicholls wrote:
Are you going to do the John Lattimer timed shots in 8 seconds experiment? That would be interesting. You would need the right scope and silhouette.

Just noticed this LOL-inducing error on the back of the Peter Jennings ABC JFK Special DVD cover.

Leon Zapruder??

Where on Earth did Koch Video (which I assume is responsible for the text on its DVD packaging) come up with LEON??

Anyway, just thought it was semi-humorous.

It appears as if Koch has mixed up Abraham Zapruder with "Leon" (officially known to Mayberry-ites as "the boy with the peanut butter & jelly sandwiches") on The Andy Griffith Show. A common error -- as Leon and Abe DO have similar facial characteristics.

To all those in the "conspiracy" camp re. JFK's murder .............

Do me a favor and stare for a minute or two at the second image from the top after clicking the link below.

Normally when reviewing the Zapruder Film, it's difficult to get a feel for the "timing" issues that are so very important when trying to prove the number of shots and number of hits on the car's occupants.

But, thanks to "looped" film sequences like the one presented below, a person can quickly evaluate a section of a given film without too much difficulty.

The 2nd image below, to me, fully spells ---- JFK and John B. Connally were hit by, and are reacting to, the very same single bullet AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

Note how Mr. Connally's right arm jerks upward suddenly at the EXACT SAME TIME Mr. Kennedy is beginning to move his arms toward his neck in a protective motion. EXACTLY the same instant!

The conspiracy advocates insist the SBT (Single Bullet Theory) is full of a million holes, and was invented by the Warren Commission to "fit" a pre-destined scenario.

But what do your eyes tell you in the pic below? What I think it says is that the SBT is far from bunk, and virtually the ONLY way the wounding of these two men could have occurred.

This sudden (and highly noticeable "jerk") of Connally's right arm at the exact same moment JFK is beginning to react is, IMO, valuable documented evidence that the Warren boys got it right in the first place with regard to the initial wounding of JFK, and all the wounds to John Connally.

Then there are also these facts ..............

> Connally's jacket lapel "flips" upward just an instant before we see the arm jerk reaction at frame Z224, indicating the bullet hitting (and exiting) that area of his body.

> Connally's very own doctor, immediately after operating on him, said on LIVE TV that Mr. Connally's wounds were "all caused by one bullet". (A fact that many conspiracy advocates do not buy.)

> If Connally were hit by MULTIPLE bullets, there's a tiny problem of --- Where did the other bullet(s) go?! NO other missiles were removed from Mr. Connally (except fragments, which all match, btw, Oswald's 6.5mm Carcano ammunition).

> Connally HIMSELF claims to have been hit only once. And his very own account of his being hit very nearly coincides perfectly with what can be seen on the Zapruder Film (that is, the Governor's own tesimony of "turning back to my left to the point of nearly looking straight ahead again, when I felt the bullet that hit me"). And, as you can see below, this account is almost exactly what we see at Frames 223-224. (Connally is looking slightly to the "right of center" when he's hit; but his account of "nearly looking straight ahead again" is pretty darn close, I think any reasonable person will agree.)

Just food for "LN" (Lone Nut Assassin) thought.

To those who sincerely believe, as many do, that (as phrased by a veteran JFK Conspiracy Buff): "This crime was beyond the capabilities of any one person",
I contend that Mr. Zapruder's infamous home movie begs to differ -- and
differ loudly. ...........

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcb...ow_topic#35988

I suppose that since I expect any evidence to be able to survive close scrutiny and pass the test of credibility I would be labeled a 'conspiracy nut'. I dispute that tag. I merely am in pursuit of the truth.

Being someone immersed in the field of Science, I have always held that assumptions should be challenged. If something is true, it is able to stand up to a challenge. And there are many things in the Warren Report that do not stand up to those challenges.

It's as simple as that.

Chris

You know, I had forgotten that the ABC special had been transferred to DVD.

Re that mistake-laden box copy: The copywriter further screwed up grammatically in the same sentence. In referring to "Leon" Zapruder, the copywriter goes on to call him "the bystander that filmed the fatal shots." It should be "the bystander who filmed the fatal shots. Where I work, that kind of error can get you in trouble.