Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › After Hours Lounge › JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread - Page 13

post #361 of 389

Robert's theory is so utterly preposterous,it doesn't merit a comment.

 

Getting back to LHO,I'm not saying he wasn't involved somehow. However,let's examine the scenario:

 

On the morning of November 22,1963 it was raining in Dallas,Texas. If the rain had continued through the early afternoon, the bullet proof bubbletop roof would have been on JFK's limousine,making an assassination at this point all but impossible. LHO must have known this in advance. Did he go to work that morning thinking: "If it's a nice day,I'm going to shoot a President,if it rains,I'm going to stack books"?  Seems unlikely. Other things which have always bothered me..apparently LHO had enough time to hide the rifle in an area far from the so called sniper's nest but he DIDN'T have the few seconds needed to scoop up the 3 spent cartridge shells lying by his feet? It's almost as if he was deliberately leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators. Also,even though Oswald probably knew in advance that the motorcade would be passing by the Depository around lunchtime when most 6th floor employees would be either in the 2nd floor lunchroom or outside waving at the Presidential motorcade, Oswald HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that there could still potentially be a few witnesses remaining on the 6th floor who would see/hear him doing the shooting despite the presence of many stacks of books. If this turned out to be the case, was Oswald prepared to gun down ALL these witnesses in order to make good his escape?

 

 

 

post #362 of 389

 

Quote:
 the bullet proof bubbletop roof would have been on JFK's limousine,making an assassination at this point all but impossible. LHO must have known this in advance.

 

There was no "bullet proof bubbletop".  The plastic bubbletop for the Lincoln was purely there to keep rain off the occupants, not to ward off an assassination attempt that no one was really anticipating.  (Think about it - if the bubbletop were bulletproof and designed to protect the president from assassination, why would they only use it when it was rainiing?  Was the Secret Service OK with losing the president as long as it was a dry day?  If it were a security measure, it would have been made permanent, not removable.)  It is possible that the need to punch through the plastic might have deflected one or more of his shots, altering the outcome (one of his bullets - the miss - was probably deflected by a tree branch) but the bubbletop could not have stopped a bullet.

 

And even if it had been bullet proof, why assume that Oswald of all people would have known anything about it?  Do you think he spent years studying Kennedy's security arrangements?  Wrong.  He had no idea that he was going to shoot the president.  (He had a desire  to shoot someone famous, hece his earlier attempt on the life of Gen. Walker.  He only picked Kennedy as a target a few days before the killing when he saw the map of the motorcade route and realized that Kennedy was going to drive right by the building where he worked.) 

 

Most of the people who have killed American public figures have considered a range of targets before accident or design settled them on one person.  Arthur Bremer wrote in his diary that he planned to kill either Richard Nixon or George Wallace at a campaign event.  His main target was Nixon, but he proved too hard to get at, so he switched to Wallace, whom he eventually shot and paralyzed.  John Hinckley, Jr. considered committing suicide in front of Jodie Foster or hijacking an airliner in order to impress her, before he decided that he would assassinate the president.  His first target was Jimmy Carter.  By the time he had a chance to carry out his plan, Carter had been replaced by Reagan.  Made no difference to Hinckley. 

 

 

Quote:
 apparently LHO had enough time to hide the rifle in an area far from the so called sniper's nest but he DIDN'T have the few seconds needed to scoop up the 3 spent cartridge shells lying by his feet? It's almost as if he was deliberately leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators

 

Actually, it is almost as though a mentally unstable non-entity who had just shot the President of the United States screwed up.  In his rush to escape the building, pumped up on adreniline, he missed the brass but ditched the rifle.  Is that so hard to believe?  Occam's razor, my friend, Occam's razor. 

 

Quote:

 If this turned out to be the case, was Oswald prepared to gun down ALL these witnesses in order to make good his escape?

 

Why not?  He was willing to gun down a police officer in order to make good his escape. 

 

I'd have to check a reference, which at the moment I really don't feel like doing, but I'm pretty sure Oswald had good reason to know that nobody else would be on the 6th floor because of the work assignments handed out that day.  Most of the employees who watched the motorcade did so from the floors where they were working or (in the case of the office workers) where their friends were working.  If there were no orders to be filled with books stored on the 6th floor, there would have been no reason for anyone else to be there.

 

Regards,

 

Joe

post #363 of 389

While you may indeed be right about the bubble top not being bullet proof, it almost certainly would have deflected the bullets to a certain extent. However, I do take issue with several of your other points." He had no idea that he was going to shoot the president." You seem to be inserting yourself into Oswald's head, knowing what may or may not have motivated him on that fateful day. How do you know that he didn't study Kennedy's security arrangements well in advance...perhaps you're privy to some information that you'd like to share here. "Actually, it is almost as though a mentally unstable non-entity who had just shot the President of the United States screwed up." This is a common refrain used by all "lone nut" theorists..i.e. Oswald,alone,killed the President, therefore he MUST have been a nut. Can you provide a link which shows that a psychiatric evaluation was indeed performed on Oswald,and the results of this examination showed that he was indeed, mentally unstable. Or perhaps, you are a psychiatrist yourself. "In his rush to escape the building, pumped up on adreniline, he missed the brass but ditched the rifle.  Is that so hard to believe?" Oswald DID NOT leave the building in a rush immediately following the shooting. Approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, he was seen by a police officer and a TSBD employee who identified him,CALMLY drinking a coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Does this sound like a man, who just committed the crime of the century,pumped up on adrenaline to the extent he forgot the simple task of scooping up the 3 cartridge shells lying at his feet?

"Why not?  He was willing to gun down a police officer in order to make good his escape." Gunning down a police officer (which he may or may not have done) without any potential witnesses who knew who he was is an entirely different scenario than shooting fellow employees on the 6th floor,some of whom may have survived and readily identified him.

"I'm pretty sure Oswald had good reason to know that nobody else would be on the 6th floor because of the work assignments handed out that day." How do you know that Oswald was privy to these so called work assignments?Were there,in fact,work assignments? Was the work schedule the same every day? Or perhaps Oswald took a poll,asking every employee if they were going to stay on the 6th floor watching the motorcade go by. Even if Oswald somehow knew in advance that nobody was SUPPOSED to be on the 6th floor at that time, how could he possibly have known that an employee,or 2, or 6, would not show up UNEXPECTEDLY at a very inconvenient time? One more thing....in the minutes preceding the assassination,Oswald was going to go down to the 2nd floor lunchroom but MISSED the freight elevator. Another employee told LHO that he would send the elevator back for him and, as I've already mentioned,the 2nd floor lunchroom is where he was spotted 90 seconds after the assassination.

post #364 of 389
One only has to read Oswald's meandering, illogical and demented writings to ascertain that he was crazy as a jaybird. Many psychiatrists have in fact done just that. As to Oswald shooting Tippit, there were no less than 12 witnesses who either directly saw Oswald shoot him in broad daylight, or they saw the immediate aftermath. Couple that with the gun used in the crime was sold to Oswald and was found on his person when apprehended(!!!) and only the most hardcore kooks deny Oswald shot Officer Tippit.


Oh and Phil, most of your points have been debunked in this thread already. Let's not start over just because time has elapsed.
post #365 of 389

My good friend Jeff Gatie! Long time no hear!..but now I'm confused.. you claimed to have put me on ignore...TWICE..so how could you possibly be reading my posts now? As far as Oswald being as crazy as a jaybird because of his demented writings..I'd like to post a quote that a certain Jeff Gatie made a few months ago: "Just like rooting for the Yankees, I'd root for a team that included Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Charles Manson, with the Devil himself in goal before I'd root for the Habs."

 

Jeff, just because one writes demented nonsense doesn't necessarily imply that the writer himself is demented.

 

GO HABS GO!

post #366 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil* View Post


My good friend Jeff Gatie! Long time no hear!..but now I'm confused.. you claimed to have put me on ignore...TWICE..so how could you possibly be reading my posts now? As far as Oswald being as crazy as a jaybird because of his demented writings..I'd like to post a quote that a certain Jeff Gatie made a few months ago: "Just like rooting for the Yankees, I'd root for a team that included Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Charles Manson, with the Devil himself in goal before I'd root for the Habs."



 



Jeff, just because one writes demented nonsense doesn't necessarily imply that the writer himself is demented.



 



GO HABS GO!




 



Someone has to grasp the concept of hyperbole. Not to mention discussing sports teams vs. Calling for the assassination of world leaders.rolleyes.gif

As far as the ignore is concerned, I explained that it didn't carry over from software change to software change. Besides, I've become a fan of demented ramblings. biggrin.gif

By the way, I see you are continuing your practice of attacking the messenger instead of debating the issue at hand. Thanks for confirming that Oswald's rantings were indeed insane, if your previous claims about me are true in your eyes. Good job!
post #367 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post

 



 

 

Quote:
 Someone has to grasp the concept of hyperbole.

 

LOL! Yes, someone should! By the way,can you provide a link as to when/where LHO called for the assassination of a world leader?

 

Quote:
 By the way, I see you are continuing your practice of attacking the messenger instead of debating the issue at hand.

 Is this hyperbole as well? Please excuse my ignorance.

 

post #368 of 389
Quote:
In the mid-1950s Oswald had spoken about shooting an American President. Palmer McBride testified to the Warren Commission that, in 1956, he befriended Oswald and they often discussed politics. McBride said that one central theme in their discussions was the “exploitation of the working class” and on one occasion, after they began discussing President Eisenhower, Oswald made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill the president because he was exploiting the working class. McBride said that the statement was not made in jest.



So unless Dwight Eisenhower is not a world leader, not only did he call for the killing, he said he'd like to do it himself.
post #369 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post



Quote:
In the mid-1950s Oswald had spoken about shooting an American President. Palmer McBride testified to the Warren Commission that, in 1956, he befriended Oswald and they often discussed politics. McBride said that one central theme in their discussions was the “exploitation of the working class” and on one occasion, after they began discussing President Eisenhower, Oswald made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill the president because he was exploiting the working class. McBride said that the statement was not made in jest.





So unless Dwight Eisenhower is not a world leader, not only did he call for the killing, he said he'd like to do it himself.



If this testimony was offered in a court of law,any competent defense attorney would object to it as "hearsay"...and his objection would be sustained. (I ALWAYS knew watching those Perry Mason episodes would pay off somehow..LOL). Nevertheless,Jeff,I am quite intrigued by this and would appreciate it if you could provide a link for this. If this was in the Warren Commission report, can you tell me what page(s) it is on?

post #370 of 389
Page 384

As far as hearsay is concerned . . . I find it laughable that a conspiracy theorist is discounting evidence due to hearsay. rolleyes.gif
post #371 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post



Quote:
 McBride said that the statement was not made in jest.



..and this would be objected to because it "calls for a conclusion".

post #372 of 389
post #373 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Hamm View Post

Robert, please stop spamming this home theater forum with your ludicrous insane theories.  Find someplace where somebody cares.  Nobody buys this bunch of malarky here.


The WC is a fantasy. The grassy knoll is a government created theory to distract from Greer. The driver shooting jfk is not just the truth, it's a very obvious truth that at least 95% of open minded people will believe in a heartbeat. They will laugh at the complete absurdity of the WC and realize how they were fooled by the grassy snow job and believe the obvious about the shot from the driver.  


 

post #374 of 389

The only authority this forum or any other has is the power to censor the obvious truth about Greer firing the fatal shot. The nix film is the smoking that was given to me this past October. In it, Greer's left arm/hand cross over in unison with the headshot and that visual fact completely destroys those movements that are not supposed to be happening in zapruder. Those movements explain why the government had to add the three points of fakery to cover those movments which killed Kennedy in the Zapruder film. I have never been challenged and never will be. The only thing that will happen, is researchers will for the most part ignore that the real truth about the fatal shot has finally been articulated to a point of no refutation.

 

post #375 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil* View Post

Robert's theory is so utterly preposterous,it doesn't merit a comment.

 

Getting back to LHO,I'm not saying he wasn't involved somehow. However,let's examine the scenario:

 

On the morning of November 22,1963 it was raining in Dallas,Texas. If the rain had continued through the early afternoon, the bullet proof bubbletop roof would have been on JFK's limousine,making an assassination at this point all but impossible. LHO must have known this in advance. Did he go to work that morning thinking: "If it's a nice day,I'm going to shoot a President,if it rains,I'm going to stack books"?  Seems unlikely. Other things which have always bothered me..apparently LHO had enough time to hide the rifle in an area far from the so called sniper's nest but he DIDN'T have the few seconds needed to scoop up the 3 spent cartridge shells lying by his feet? It's almost as if he was deliberately leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators. Also,even though Oswald probably knew in advance that the motorcade would be passing by the Depository around lunchtime when most 6th floor employees would be either in the 2nd floor lunchroom or outside waving at the Presidential motorcade, Oswald HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that there could still potentially be a few witnesses remaining on the 6th floor who would see/hear him doing the shooting despite the presence of many stacks of books. If this turned out to be the case, was Oswald prepared to gun down ALL these witnesses in order to make good his escape?

 

 

 


Please stop posting denials and claiming faux authority of which you have ZERO. It's quite PATHETIC. It also proves you have no defense against visual facts and are clueless. It does show you seem to think that consensus is more important than a convincing argument. Ghandi wouldn't like you.

I point to the fake reflection on Roy's hair and because the REFLECTION is different on a different angle, with different film, settings, it is fake. I also show Greer's left arm crossing in the nix film which proves why the three points of fakery were added to Zapruder to cover those movments which killed Kennedy.

I use witnesses including Jackie Kennedy and Greer. The shot went in the right front and out the right rear fired by Bill Greer.

Your kung fu is weak. I know you THINK think your denials mean something. I'm just telling you they don't.

You are denying what is visually happening in nix and zapruder.

The "gun" is visible. You are denying reality.

The "grassy knoll" is a red herring created during the alteration of the zfilm to distract from Greer. This is common sense and fits with the evidence perfectly.

Logic flows naturally, it does need pushing...and animated gifs.

 
 

post #376 of 389

You were asked to stop. You made your point, what you want to tell us is clear.

You force us to warn you now that we will not allow you to proceed as you do. Especially: do not post those images once again. We've seen them.

 

Also, you are violating our rules by bumping this thread up over and again by making multiple posts. Please try to *communicate* with people,  That includes reading other people's arguments, react sensibly and politely to them and make it possible for them to really interact with you.

 

Please consider this a formal warning!

 

 

Cees

post #377 of 389

 

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."—John F. Kennedy. 

 

Arguably,THE authoritative reading on the JFK assassination.

 

"What's Past is Prologue"---William Shakespeare

 

One only has to examine LBJ's past to see what this man was capable of.


JFK.jpg

post #378 of 389

Phil, are you insinuating that book you have shown is "Arguably,THE authoritative reading on the JFK assassination."???

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

 

Try this instead:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295877869&sr=1-26

post #379 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Hamm View Post

Phil, are you insinuating that book you have shown is "Arguably,THE authoritative reading on the JFK assassination."???

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

 

Try this instead:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295877869&sr=1-26



"Reclaiming History-Assassination of President Kennedy"...I found this book in the library..in the fiction section.

post #380 of 389
Don't bother Philip, Phil is only here to insult. Look earlier in the thread. Whenever he has his points debunked, he immediately attacks the debunker personally. Look no further than his accusation that I must be a violent and dangerous person because of my knowledge of firearms, which I had just used to savage his "puff of smoke" theory.
post #381 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post

Don't bother Philip, Phil is only here to insult. Look earlier in the thread. Whenever he has his points debunked, he immediately attacks the debunker personally. Look no further than his accusation that I must be a violent and dangerous person because of my knowledge of firearms, which I had just used to savage his "puff of smoke" theory.



No, I never said or implied that you are a violent and dangerous person because of your "knowledge of firearms". That is completely convoluted logic.

 And as far as only being here to insult...your posts lend credence to the charge that is what you are here for.

 

However, I digress...if you haven't read "Blood,Money & Power" Jeff, perhaps you should before dismissing it out of hand.

post #382 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post

Don't bother Philip, Phil is only here to insult. Look earlier in the thread. Whenever he has his points debunked, he immediately attacks the debunker personally. Look no further than his accusation that I must be a violent and dangerous person because of my knowledge of firearms, which I had just used to savage his "puff of smoke" theory.


Seems to me that he's here to amuse. :)

post #383 of 389


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil* View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post

Don't bother Philip, Phil is only here to insult. Look earlier in the thread. Whenever he has his points debunked, he immediately attacks the debunker personally. Look no further than his accusation that I must be a violent and dangerous person because of my knowledge of firearms, which I had just used to savage his "puff of smoke" theory.



No, I never said or implied that you are a violent and dangerous person because of your "knowledge of firearms". That is completely convoluted logic.

 And as far as only being here to insult...your posts lend credence to the charge that is what you are here for.

 

However, I digress...if you haven't read "Blood,Money & Power" Jeff, perhaps you should before dismissing it out of hand.



Dismissing it out of hand is the more sensible, sane route however.

post #384 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip HammView Post

View Post

View Post


Dismissing it out of hand is the more sensible, sane route however.



I'm assuming by this you've read the book..otherwise..you're being pre-emptive in your judgment of it.

post #385 of 389


Quote:

Originally Posted by phil* View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip HammView Post

View Post

View Post


Dismissing it out of hand is the more sensible, sane route however.



I'm assuming by this you've read the book..otherwise..you're being pre-emptive in your judgment of it.



I make it a point in my life to avoid crazy and insane things like this book.  I find that choosing not to expose myself to lunacy makes for a better life.  Give it a try some time!

post #386 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Hamm View Post


View Post

View Post

View Post

View Post

 



I make it a point in my life to avoid crazy and insane things like this book.  I find that choosing not to expose myself to lunacy makes for a better life.  Give it a try some time!



It is for THIS very reason why I've chosen not to read Vincent Bugliosi's book.

post #387 of 389

Because you reject sanity in the same way that I reject insanity?  Or you don't know the difference?  Or can't tell the difference?  Or never learned to discern sources?

 

Enjoy La-La land.  I hear it's a pretty paranoid place.

post #388 of 389

I'm amazed that this thread has lasted as long as it has.

post #389 of 389

Yeah.  Let's stop the meaningless (and tiring) sniping back and forth between members, please.

 

Post on the topic at hand only while remaining civil to follow members.  If you can't abide by the rules, please excuse yourself from the discussion.

 

It is fine to disagree.  It is not fine to disparage those who disagree with you.

 

From the HTF Rulebook:

 

Quote:
No personal attacks. We expect all members to treat each other with consideration and respect. While we encourage lively debate, we do not allow personal attacks. This includes direct attacks, such as name-calling, as well as indirect attacks, such as repeated baiting of a member in a provocative or belittling manner. If you believe that you have been subjected to a personal attack, or have witnessed one on another member, please see the section on Dealing with Problems for instructions on how to proceed.

 

Questions?  Contact your friendly local moderator. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: After Hours Lounge
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › After Hours Lounge › JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread