Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
420 replies to this topic

#21 of 421 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted June 07 2009 - 07:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Von Pein:
During the original 1986 Showtime telecast of "ON TRIAL", a live telephone poll was conducted just before the verdict in the trial was revealed, with the viewer poll showing that 85% of those who called in (in the Eastern and Central time zones only) thought that Oswald was NOT GUILTY of killing JFK. With only 15% believing that Oswald was guilty.

That poll stunned host Edwin Newman that night (which was 11/22/86). I never did see the final totals of that telephone poll (including the western states too), but I'm doubting that the 15% overtook the 85% after the program left the air.

It must have been something in the water that night in the eastern states. Because people in my neck of the woods -- the midwest -- usually aren't so totally blind to the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Brock:
Or maybe the people in the midwest are more likely to believe whatever claptrap the government is feeding them.
In this particular case (the JFK case), the Oswald-Did-It "claptrap" is the truth (of course). Every scrap of physical evidence supports Oswald's guilt (and probably his lone guilt as well).

Conspiracy theorists just flat-out want to ignore the mile-high pile of physical evidence which is screaming "It was only Oswald". And the kooky theorists (like Garrison, Stone, Marrs, Fetzer, et al) have totally ignored that evidence--for 45 years now. Pathetic.


Quote:
Regarding Oswald's guilt in either murder...how come he didn't test positive on the parafin [sic] test?
Maybe you should learn the case a little better, because Oswald did test positive for nitrates on his hands. (Negative on his cheek.)

But a paraffin test is pretty much a meaningless and useless test for definitively determining whether somebody has fired a gun or not, because of all the false positives and false negatives that such paraffin tests produce.

Case in point -- An FBI agent fired Oswald's very own Carcano rifle after the JFK assassination, and the agent tested negative for nitrates on both his face and hands. That shows the unreliability of paraffin tests in general.


Quote:
The Warren Report had holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Nonsense. The Warren Commission did an outstanding job. They even re-created the assassination in May 1964 in Dealey Plaza, and they were even able to pinpoint the timing of the Single-Bullet Theory gunshot on the Zapruder Film way back in 1964 (years before more-modern techniques were available), with the Commission bracketing the SBT between Z210 and Z225. And the SBT, in my opinion, occurred within that span of frames--at Z224.


Quote:
Another question -- since when is someone's guilt decided and then the investigation only undertaken to prove it rather than investigating the facts and seeing where they lead?
Along those lines, you're not one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks that the Warren Commission only interviewed and took the testimony of people who positively favored Oswald's lone guilt, are you?

Many conspiracists do seem to believe that the Warren Commission only talked to witnesses who were "pro-Lone Assassin" witnesses. Mark Lane and Jim Garrison always liked to spout that nonsensical belief.

But, of course, such a belief is totally incorrect, because the WC took the testimony of many, many witnesses who said things on the record that the WC critics love to prop up as "proof of conspiracy" -- witnesses such as S.M. Holland, Jean Hill, Lee Bowers, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, William Newman, Linnie Mae Randle, and Roger Craig (among many others).

Roger Craig, btw, was without a doubt the biggest liar connected with the entire JFK case (not counting Oswald, of course). And Jean Hill wasn't too far behind Craig in the "provable lies" department.

But the totality of evidence is telling any reasonable person that Lee Oswald killed two men in Dallas in November 1963.

Was the Warren Commission supposed to toss this "totality" out the window and go chasing shadows on the Grassy Knoll, based on the testimony of people like Jean Hill and Skinny Holland?

And the "totality" of evidence includes the often-overlooked corroborating evidence regarding the number of gunshots that were fired that day, with over 90% of the earwitnesses hearing three shots or fewer....and exactly three spent bullet shells being found underneath the sixth-floor window in the Book Depository.

Just a coincidence?


Quote:
Why would the crime scene, i.e., the limo, be cleaned and wiped clear of all evidence if there was nothing being hidden?
And you think that a band of "cover-up" agents decided to wipe out any "conspiracy"-favoring evidence at Parkland while cameras filmed them doing so?

Excuse me for saying this -- but that's nuts.


Quote:
Why couldn't any FBI marksman recreate the shots even after adjusting the misaligned scope?
Conspiracy theorists just love to drag out this stale, worn-out argument. But the fact is, several people since 1963 have duplicated and bettered Oswald's shooting performance.

The most noted and publicized of the duplications (via network television footage of the re-creations) are the CBS-TV rifle tests done in 1967. Granted, the rifle that was used for the CBS tests wasn't Oswald's exact rifle, but the tests were done with a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle like Oswald's, which was fitted with the exact same type of inexpensive Japanese scope.

Plus, the '67 CBS tests were performed from a 60-foot-high tower and with a moving target -- unlike the earlier FBI/WC tests in 1964, which were done from only a 30-foot-high tower and with stationary targets.

And here's what the CBS cameras captured:




Quote:
Why were there more grams in Connally's wrist than in the magic bullet? [Neil/Danny really meant to say this: "Why were there more grains of bullet lead in Connally's wrist than were MISSING from the 'magic bullet'?"]
That's Conspiracy Myth #14.

But the fact is, I can make a very good case for there having been an extremely tiny amount of bullet material deposited in Governor Connally's wrist by Bullet #CE399.

And I can also make a pretty strong case for almost no metallic bullet fragments being left inside Connally's right wrist after he was operated on (after the "2 or 3" very small fragments were removed from that wrist), with perhaps as few as only one small metal fragment remaining in his wrist after the operation.

And I can support these arguments relating to the Connally bullet fragments by utilizing the post-operative X-rays taken of Governor Connally's injured right wrist (CE692 and CE693), plus the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles Gregory, who was the doctor responsible for Connally's wrist injury:

Did Bullet CE399 Deposit "Too Many Fragments" Inside John Connally's Body?

Setting The Record Straight: Correcting A Few "Reclaiming History" Errors

What about the fragments they removed from Connally?


Quote:
Why did Gov. Connally, when interviewed in his hospital bed, say that he was struck by a separate bullet?
In his 11/27/63 bedside interview with Martin Agronsky, Governor Connally uses the words "the President had slumped" when verbally re-creating the tragedy. But in every interview and official testimony session thereafter, Connally always maintained that he never saw JFK at the critical time in question.

Therefore, if Connally never actually saw JFK at all during the moments when each man was hit by a bullet, how can Governor Connally possibly know for certain whether Kennedy was hit by a separate bullet or not?

My own view on the bedside "slumped" remark is that John Connally got that information from his wife, Nellie, who always maintained that she saw the President "slump". In fact, she uses the words "he just sort of slumped down" in her Warren Commission testimony to describe JFK's movements in the car just after the President was shot.

You'll also note in the bedside interview that John Connally doesn't actually say "I saw the President slump". He says "the President had slumped". IMO, he got that information from his wife.

You might also be interested to know that Governor Connally admitted in 1967 that the Single-Bullet Theory was "possible" (Connally's own quote):

John Connally Is On Camera In 1967 Saying The SBT Is "Possible"


Lots more here:
THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT

#22 of 421 OFFLINE   Neil Brock

Neil Brock

    Screenwriter



  • 2,143 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2009

Posted June 08 2009 - 03:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Von Pein
[/b]
[/b]
In this particular case (the JFK case), the Oswald-Did-It "claptrap" is the truth (of course). Every scrap of physical evidence supports Oswald's guilt (and probably his lone guilt as well).

Conspiracy theorists just flat-out want to ignore the mile-high pile of physical evidence which is screaming "It was only Oswald". And the kooky theorists (like Garrison, Stone, Marrs, Fetzer, et al) have totally ignored that evidence--for 45 years now. Pathetic.




[/b]
Along those lines, you're not one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks that the Warren Commission only interviewed and took the testimony of people who positively favored Oswald's lone guilt, are you?

Was the Warren Commission supposed to toss this "totality" out the window and go chasing shadows on the Grassy Knoll, based on the testimony of people like Jean Hill and Skinny Holland?

And the "totality" of evidence includes the often-overlooked corroborating evidence regarding the number of gunshots that were fired that day, with over 90% of the earwitnesses hearing three shots or fewer....and exactly three spent bullet shells being found underneath the sixth-floor window in the Book Depository.

Just a coincidence?


[/b]
And you think that a band of "cover-up" agents decided to wipe out any "conspiracy"-favoring evidence at Parkland while cameras filmed them doing so?

Excuse me for saying this -- but that's nuts.





And of course we can count on the "physical evidence" 100% because the police did such a good job of securing the crime scene area.


Even President Johnson never believed the Warren Report. It was done to placate the American public and ease fears. At the time it was done, pre-Vietnam, pre-Watergate, people were likely to believe everything their government told them.

As for the Grassy Knoll, what about the witnesses who were in front of the knoll and who heard the shots coming from behind them, some of whom said they felt as if they were over their heads?

You bring up wiping evidence at Parkland but I didn't mention Parkland. Again, why was the limo, where the murder took place, immediately wiped clean and all evidence destroyed? Or are you saying that never happened and that's also a theory of conspiracy nuts?

And the magic bullet theory? It was conveniently arrived much later after the bullet fragment was found on the curb. Originally they said it was 3 shots which all hit. But then once it was discovered, then all had to be changed a one near pristine bullet then had to account for 7 wounds.

What about the doctor at Parkland who said at a press conference that the President was shot in the front of the head? He's completely wrong of course because it doesn't follow the party line.

How does your Oswald theory explain Rose Cheramie?

Rose Cheramie (Cherami) was found unconsciousness by the side of the road at Eunice, Louisiana, on 20th November, 1963. Lieutenant Francis Frugé of the Louisiana State Police took her to the state hospital. On the journey Cheramie said that she had been thrown out of a car by two gangsters who worked for Jack Ruby. She claimed that the men were involved in a plot to kill John F. Kennedy. Cheramie added that Kennedy would be killed in Dallas within a few days. Later she told the same story to doctors and nurses who treated her. As she appeared to be under the influence of drugs her story was ignored.


Was she psychic? Did she travel back in time from the future? Just a coincidence? Love to hear how you and the other Warren Commission apologists explain this one.

#23 of 421 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,313 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted June 08 2009 - 05:56 AM

No doubt this will fall on deaf ears but since neither of you is going to convince the other, how about just agreeing to disagree rather than the going tit for tat?

#24 of 421 OFFLINE   Jack P

Jack P

    Producer



  • 3,160 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2006

Posted June 08 2009 - 06:15 AM

LBJ hardly spent days and nights poring through 26 volumes of testimony. His belief on conspiracy though, had more to do with whether Fidel Castro was behind Oswald, not whether there were multiple gunmen (plus, that conspiracy belief on the part of LBJ undermines the idea of government covering up the evidence in the moments following the assassination)

You also keep mentioning witnesses who *thought* they heard shots from behind but leave out the fact that an equal number thought they came from the Depository. And when the physical evidence shows the latter, that merely tells us that the witnesses who thought Depository were correct and the others made honest mistakes. You do not, as a matter of common sense say that if one witness said the hold-up man wore a black hat and the other witness said the hold-up man wore a white hat, then ergo there must have been two hold-up men even though the evidence says just one!

As for Rose Cheramie, it's already been explained.

Impeaching Clinton, Part Two: An examination of the witnesses from Clinton, Louisiana, allegedly linking Lee Harvey Oswald ro Jim Garrison suspects David Ferrie and Clay Shaw: John F. Kennedy assassination: Jim Garrison investigation: JFK: Rose Chera

That's my final comment. Dave can summon a more detailed defense at will. Posted Image

#25 of 421 OFFLINE   Jeff Gatie

Jeff Gatie

    Lead Actor



  • 6,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted June 08 2009 - 06:16 AM

Quote:
Rose Cheramie (Cherami) was found unconsciousness by the side of the road at Eunice, Louisiana, on 20th November, 1963. Lieutenant Francis Frugé of the Louisiana State Police took her to the state hospital. On the journey Cheramie said that she had been thrown out of a car by two gangsters who worked for Jack Ruby. She claimed that the men were involved in a plot to kill John F. Kennedy. Cheramie added that Kennedy would be killed in Dallas within a few days. Later she told the same story to doctors and nurses who treated her. As she appeared to be under the influence of drugs her story was ignored.

Both the doctor and the police officer who claimed to have heard Cherami's "prediction" had ample opportunity to relay this information to the FBI, but neither Dr. Weiss nor Officer Fruge had any recollection of Cherami predicting the assassination until they were deposed in 1979, 16 years after the fact. Matter of fact, when their statements were taken by the NODAO in 1967, neither could recall Charami discussing the assassination prior to the event. Garrison's staff also interviewed the staff of the East State Louisiana Hospital in which Cherami was held, and not one soul could recall her "prediction" first-hand.

#26 of 421 OFFLINE   Neil Brock

Neil Brock

    Screenwriter



  • 2,143 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2009

Posted June 08 2009 - 08:02 AM

One other point I'd like to get a response to. When the press spoke to Oswald he said that he was a patsy. Now considering the entire situation, let me ask you when or where have you ever heard any murder suspect, let alone one who was presumed to have committed the crime of the century, say something like that? I've never heard it. Maybe say I'm innocent, I didn't do it, etc. Just not what you would expect to hear. Anyway, as a poster above said, no minds will be changed. You can continue along with the very small minority of Warren Report believers while the vast majority of us feels otherwise. At least you have the apologists in the mainstream media on your side.

#27 of 421 OFFLINE   Jeff Gatie

Jeff Gatie

    Lead Actor



  • 6,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted June 08 2009 - 08:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Brock
One other point I'd like to get a response to. When the press spoke to Oswald he said that he was a patsy. Now considering the entire situation, let me ask you when or where have you ever heard any murder suspect, let alone one who was presumed to have committed the crime of the century, say something like that? I've never heard it. Maybe say I'm innocent, I didn't do it, etc. Just not what you would expect to hear. Anyway, as a poster above said, no minds will be changed. You can continue along with the very small minority of Warren Report believers while the vast majority of us feels otherwise. At least you have the apologists in the mainstream media on your side.

So you are basing your defense of Oswald on his "patsy" statement? The insane rantings of a raving lunatic with a lust for the spotlight now trumps mountains of physical and circumstantial evidence?


Uhhhhh . . . ok. Posted Image

Oh and if you knew anything, I mean anything about me, you'd never claim the mainstream media is on my side, "apologists" or not. Posted Image

#28 of 421 OFFLINE   Neil Brock

Neil Brock

    Screenwriter



  • 2,143 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2009

Posted June 08 2009 - 02:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
So you are basing your defense of Oswald on his "patsy" statement? The insane rantings of a raving lunatic with a lust for the spotlight now trumps mountains of physical and circumstantial evidence?



Evidence like what? The rifle with no fingerprints on it? Unless you count the "palm print" which miraculously showed up after Oswald was killed.

There are many other questions surrounding the latent palm print. These questions have been discussed in such highly acclaimed works as Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact Vintage Books Edition, New York: Vintage Books, 1992, reprint, pp. 120-127) and Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, pp. 106-109). For example, newsmen with sources inside the Dallas Police Department widely reported that as of the time the rifle was handed over to the FBI on Friday night, Oswald's prints had not been found on the weapon, and that this was "a big disappointment" to the authorities. Yet, Lt. Day told the WC that on Friday night, well before he handed over the rifle, he recognized the palm print as probably belonging to Oswald, and that he told Captain Fritz and Chief Curry about this. However, when Fritz was asked the next day if Oswald's prints had been found on the rifle, he replied, "No, Sir." The first time any Dallas law official said anything about the palm print was early Monday morning, several hours after Oswald had died and at right around the same time the FBI team was fingerprinting Oswald's body at the morgue. It bears remembering, too, that nobody outside the Dallas Police Department--and, according to the official record, nobody but Lt. Day--saw the palm print until November 29, seven days after it was supposedly lifted and four days after its alleged discovery was belatedly announced. (The odd, inexplicable delay in announcing the print's alleged discovery is all the more suspicious in light of how the Dallas police and the DA's office rushed to tell the press about any and all evidence, tentative or otherwise, that tied, or appeared to tie, Oswald to the shooting. It turned out that a number of the initial DPD statements and claims were erroneous. Given the police's rush to hurriedly release even speculative and/or unconfirmed information damaging to Oswald, it is hard to believe they would not have immediately announced the "probable" or "possible" finding of Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon if in fact they had made such a discovery.)

#29 of 421 OFFLINE   Jeff Gatie

Jeff Gatie

    Lead Actor



  • 6,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted June 08 2009 - 03:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
No doubt this will fall on deaf ears but since neither of you is going to convince the other, how about just agreeing to disagree rather than the going tit for tat?

If you noticed, there is no "tit for tat". A conspracy story is mentioned, David shoots it down, then they forget about that one and go on to the next. It's more like all tit, no tat.

So perhaps your first statement about "agreeing to disagree" is the wisest of them all.

#30 of 421 OFFLINE   MattPeriolat

MattPeriolat

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2004

Posted June 08 2009 - 04:27 PM

Well, speaking for myself, I've learned a few things about the Kennedy assassination:

1.) It's an event that sparks passions on both sides, regardless of which point of view you take.

2.) It's a touchstone event for a culture, like Pearl Harbor was in '41 and 9/11 would be for my generation.

But I think the most important thing I've learned is simply this: no amount of arguing, puzzling or guessing changes one simple fact - it's not going to bring Kennedy back, one way or the other. Maybe that's part of the reason for the passion, to fill the void of the loss.

Now, that being said, I am happy about the material that has been released, but man, one of these days, I'd really love one of the networks or maybe all of the Big 3 to put out multi-disc sets of their coverage from 11/22, 11/24 and 11/25. True, there is some from the date of the assassination, but very little outside of highlights of the ceremonies at the Capitol, the funeral Mass at St. Matt's or the burial at Arlington, to say nothing of Oswald's demise in Dallas.

Sorry, history major in me. Always craving more.
So much TV... So little money! Please visit my blog at: http://tvhistoryondvd.blogspot.com/

#31 of 421 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted June 08 2009 - 04:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Brock:
When the press spoke to Oswald he said that he was a patsy. Now considering the entire situation, let me ask you when or where have you ever heard any murder suspect, let alone one who was presumed to have committed the crime of the century, say something like that?
Lee Harvey Oswald's "Patsy" declaration is another thing that has been severely misrepresented and taken completely out of context by conspiracy theorists over the years.

What you need to do is listen to the entire "Patsy" comment made by Oswald in the DPD hallway, instead of just focusing on the last four words of Oswald's statement ("I'm just a patsy"). Here's the whole thing:

LEE HARVEY OSWALD DECLARES "I'M JUST A PATSY"

When listening to the whole statement linked above, it becomes very obvious that Oswald is not talking about some group like the Mob or the CIA or anti-Castro Cubans setting him up to take the fall for JFK's murder.

Instead, by way of the provable LIE that he utters just one second before he says he's a patsy -- "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union" -- Oswald clearly is indicating that he believes it is the Dallas Police who are setting him up as the "patsy".

Now, does any reasonable person on the planet actually think that Oswald really believed that the only reason he was "taken in" was because he had lived in Russia from 1959 to 1962? That's nuts. He knew damn well why he was "taken in" by the Dallas Police.

He was arrested because he hit a policeman in the face and because he pulled a gun on some cops in the Texas Theater after the police went there on a tip that a man was acting suspiciously and "running from them [the police] for some reason" [quote from Julia Postal, who is the woman who called the police from the theater on 11/22/63].

And based on just the J.D. Tippit murder alone (which is a murder that only a total fool could think was committed by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald), and not even counting JFK's murder, we know beyond all doubt that Oswald was lying when he played dumb and said to the press over and over again, "I don't know what I'm here for".

And we can also, therefore, know that the words that came out of Oswald's mouth just one second prior to saying "I'm just a patsy" were words that formed one of the dozens of provable lies that were uttered by LHO while he was in police custody, because Oswald, more than any other person in the whole world, certainly knew the reason why he had been arrested on November 22, 1963.

So, quite literally, Lee Oswald was claiming that the Dallas Police Department was making him a "patsy" for the President's murder and for Officer Tippit's murder too. And that, quite frankly, is just plain silly.

For one (big) thing -- Does anybody really believe that the Dallas Police would have attempted to frame an innocent man named Oswald, all the while the DPD doesn't give a damn about letting the real killer(s) of their fellow officer go free? That's just nuts.

Plus, there's also the fact that the Dallas Police certainly didn't have any knowledge whatsoever of Oswald's defection to Russia at the time he was placed under arrest at 1:50 PM (CST) on 11/22/63. The DPD didn't learn about Oswald's background until hours later, which is when the rest of America and the world began to get the full story on this kooky loner named Lee Harvey.

But the conspiracy theorists continue to enjoy propping up Oswald's "Patsy" statement as if it really meant something important....and as if Oswald was really telling the world the truth when he said he was just a patsy.

But I'm still wondering why so many conspiracists want to believe Lee Harvey's "Patsy" whitewash, even though those same conspiracists must certainly realize that Oswald was telling a whopper of a lie just one second earlier?!

If Oswald was telling a provable lie in the first part of his statement (and he definitely was), then why on Earth would anyone suddenly think he would perform a complete about-face and start telling the truth one second later? Again, that's nuts.


Quote:
How does your Oswald theory explain Rose Cheramie? .... Was she psychic? Did she travel back in time from the future? Just a coincidence? Love to hear how you and the other Warren Commission apologists explain this one.
I just love being called a "Warren Commission apologist". It truly makes my day, and it always provides a chuckle too. Almost as much as the oft-bandied-about term "Warrenatti". Conspiracy-happy folks love that one too. Posted Image

As for Rose Cherami, I haven't done a great deal of research on her story, but another JFK researcher has--Dave Reitzes:
[quote]"Among conspiracy theorists, the story has been considered quite credible since 1979, when an account by investigator Patricia Orr was published by the HSCA. This account was based primarily on the HSCA depositions of Francis Frugé and Victor Weiss, a doctor at the Jackson hospital.

"The problem is that in accounts given by Frugé and Weiss to the New Orleans District Attorney's Office over a decade earlier, in 1967, there is no mention whatsoever of Cherami having made any statements about the assassination prior to the time it occurred.

"On the contrary, several 1967 accounts by Frugé state only that, following Cherami's November 26 release from the Jackson hospital, Cherami informed Frugé that she had worked for Ruby, that Ruby and Oswald had been in Ruby's club together, and that the two were "good friends" and "bed partners"."
-- David A. Reitzes [via link provided below][/quote] Rose Cherami: Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100

==================================================

"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" VIDEO DOWNLOAD LINKS

www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein

==================================================

#32 of 421 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted June 08 2009 - 05:41 PM

Quote:
I'd really love one of the networks or maybe all of the Big 3 to put out multi-disc sets of their coverage from 11/22, 11/24 and 11/25. True, there is some from the date of the assassination, but very little outside of highlights of the ceremonies at the Capitol, the funeral Mass at St. Matt's or the burial at Arlington, to say nothing of Oswald's demise in Dallas. Sorry, history major in me. Always craving more.
I can point you to my JFK-laden YouTube channel, Matt. Have you seen it? If not, there's a lot there for someone like you to love. Here are my organized Playlists:

YouTube - DavidVonPein's Channel

And:

12 HOURS OF CBS, NBC, & ABC ASSASSINATION COVERAGE

#33 of 421 OFFLINE   MattPeriolat

MattPeriolat

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2004

Posted June 08 2009 - 05:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Von Pein
[/b]
I can point you to my JFK-laden YouTube channel, Matt. Have you seen it? If not, there's a lot there for someone like you to love. Here are my organized Playlists:

YouTube - DavidVonPein's Channel

Good lord...

Thank goodness it's my bedtime or I'd be up all night with this! Very impressive collection of material, sir.
So much TV... So little money! Please visit my blog at: http://tvhistoryondvd.blogspot.com/

#34 of 421 OFFLINE   DivyaMani

DivyaMani

    Auditioning



  • 2 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 02 2009

Posted June 08 2009 - 06:30 PM

The above quote came from the lips of Mrs. Ruth
http://www.*********...***************

#35 of 421 OFFLINE   Jack P

Jack P

    Producer



  • 3,160 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2006

Posted June 08 2009 - 07:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Brock
Evidence like what? The rifle with no fingerprints on it?

Ummm....you left out the matter of the *partial* prints that were on the rifle but which in 1963 could not be conclusively matched to Oswald's based on incompleteness. But in 1993, Vincent Scalice, the fingerprint expert for the HSCA examined different photos taken of the rifle with the partial prints on before they were lifted and by using adjusting contrasts on different pictures was able to come up with a perfect conclusive match with Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle.

The idea of the "planted" palm print also does not pass muster. Especially in light of the fingerprint re-examination by Vincent Scalice.

#36 of 421 OFFLINE   Neil Brock

Neil Brock

    Screenwriter



  • 2,143 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2009

Posted June 09 2009 - 03:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack P
Ummm....you left out the matter of the *partial* prints that were on the rifle but which in 1963 could not be conclusively matched to Oswald's based on incompleteness. But in 1993, Vincent Scalice, the fingerprint expert for the HSCA examined different photos taken of the rifle with the partial prints on before they were lifted and by using adjusting contrasts on different pictures was able to come up with a perfect conclusive match with Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle.

The idea of the "planted" palm print also does not pass muster. Especially in light of the fingerprint re-examination by Vincent Scalice.


Why were there no prints found or mentioned as being found until days later, after Oswald was killed? The police were touting all of their findings but no mention of any prints? Mmmm. Interesting. Because we all know that police would never doctor evidence. Especially in a small town like Dallas (which is what it was in 1963).

BTW, still haven't gotten a repsonse as to why the shots were said to have been 3 that hit and the story didn't change until the curbside bullet was found. So, all 3 bullets struck until a miss was found and then magically it became perfectly logical that only 2 struck and did all of the damage?

I guess this doctor must not know what a bullet is, since he states that it is still in Gov. Connally's leg:

YouTube - Dr. Shaw- "bullet still in leg"?!?! 11/22/63

Maybe it got there by itself.

#37 of 421 OFFLINE   Jack P

Jack P

    Producer



  • 3,160 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2006

Posted June 09 2009 - 04:37 AM

Neil, I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but these partials on the rifle of which I speak, are prints *ON* the rifle and what Scalice studied were the original photos taken by the Dallas PD when they found the rifle. There is no fakery involved, and then would you kindly explain why they wouldn't be thorough enough to put prints of Oswald on that couldn't be matched for another 30 years until technology made it possible to do so?

You're unfortunately offering a nice demonstration of how common sense goes out the window when it comes to how conspiracy think has to work.

#38 of 421 OFFLINE   Jeff Gatie

Jeff Gatie

    Lead Actor



  • 6,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted June 09 2009 - 05:39 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack P
There is no fakery involved, and then would you kindly explain why they wouldn't be thorough enough to put prints of Oswald on that couldn't be matched for another 30 years until technology made it possible to do so?


The Dallas PD borrowed Rose Cherami's time machine and traveled forward to scope out the new technology? Posted Image

Of course that would mean the Dallas PD were behind it, with the Cubans, and the drug dealers, and the mob, and the anti-Cubans, and the CIA, and the Secret Service, and 3/4's of the witnesses, and half the population of New Orleans, and LBJ, and Marina Oswald, and the de Mohrenschildt's, and Major General Edwin Walker, and the communists, and the anti-communists, and the Marines, and the Illuminati, and the Masons, and the KKK, and last but not least, Jack Ruby, who died of stomach cancer induced by secret Russian chemicals delivered by the Texas State Prison System's cafeteria workers (who were also in on the conspiracy - their hairnets doubled as secret spy transmitters).

It's a good thing they can all keep a secret, huh?

#39 of 421 OFFLINE   Jeff Gatie

Jeff Gatie

    Lead Actor



  • 6,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted June 09 2009 - 05:52 AM

Quote:
BTW, still haven't gotten a repsonse as to why the shots were said to have been 3 that hit and the story didn't change until the curbside bullet was found. So, all 3 bullets struck until a miss was found and then magically it became perfectly logical that only 2 struck and did all of the damage?


Because you go where the evidence leads you. At first, there was no evidence of the first shot missing. Until that was found, they went where the evidence leads them. Same as after it was found. I don't see how that effects the SBT (which has been proven possible and probable many, many times) one bit. Matter of fact, it supports the SBT, because we know definitely that only 2 shots hit.

Now, can you explain to me why you haven't answered the many bogus claims you have put forth in this thread, such as the false Rose Chemari story, the "unduplicated" shots that were actually duplicated, the "passed" parafin test that was actually failed, the "nonexistent" prints that were found to be Oswald's 30 years later, and many others? Or are you just going to let those claims wither, jumping from one claim to another as each one is debunked, always staying one step ahead of the truth?

#40 of 421 OFFLINE   Neil Brock

Neil Brock

    Screenwriter



  • 2,143 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2009

Posted June 09 2009 - 06:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
Of course that would mean the Dallas PD were behind it, with the Cubans, and the drug dealers, and the mob, and the anti-Cubans, and the CIA, and the Secret Service, and 3/4's of the witnesses, and half the population of New Orleans, and LBJ, and Marina Oswald, and the de Mohrenschildt's, and Major General Edwin Walker, and the communists, and the anti-communists, and the Marines, and the Illuminati, and the Masons, and the KKK, and last but not least, Jack Ruby, who died of stomach cancer induced by secret Russian chemicals delivered by the Texas State Prison System's cafeteria workers (who were also in on the conspiracy - their hairnets doubled as secret spy transmitters).

Finally you get it! Posted Image

I don't claim to know what happened and I certainly don't go by anything Jim Garrison said. I'm not as sure as you that it was Oswald. All I'm saying is that I don't know but what happened, how it was handled before and after, Oswald's murder, sure leaves plenty of room for doubt. I've read and seen numerous accounts on both sides of the issue and all I'm saying is that I have a reasonable doubt. It all seems too pat - lone nut, killed two days later by a patriotic wannabe who just happened to be mob connected. Because we all know what big patriots the stip-club owner mobsters are. Just too convenient.


Back to TV on DVD and Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow