Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    And finally can anyone explain how the assassination was in any way a regime change? Do CT’s consider Kennedy a dictator? They do realise that the Democrat party was still in power after the assassination or was the party as a whole in such fear of Il Duce Kennedy they they didn’t have their own opinions and beliefs and that they could only get their own way with him dead? I’ll say it again…

    please grow up.
    Hi Herlock. I'm only barely following this conversation, and have no pony in the race, but your above commentary strikes me as somewhat simplistic.

    In American politics, running mates in one political party often represent very different factions or forces within that party. The theory behind these odd "marriages of convenience" is to appeal to a broader political base. The 'party' might also find it wise to have a candidate pick a running mate whose beliefs, world view, etc., will contrast with the candidate's own beliefs---either as a sort of balance, or to appeal to a specific region of the country that the party needs to win in order to secure the White House. Thus, these political 'marriages' can be complicated and counterintuitive.

    Perhaps this isn't the best example, but look no further than Donald John Trump, a hedonist and playboy from Queens, New York who teamed up with Mike Pence, an Evangelical Christian from the Midwest. The two men have little or nothing in common in world view or otherwise, which is precisely why Pence was chosen--because he was Trump's opposite and could bring in a certain faction within the larger party. In the end, this proved unnecessary for the Evangelicals strangely and unexpectedly embraced the hedonist from Queens as one of their own.

    So, in theory, an assassination even in American politics could be seen as a 'regime change' to someone with an extreme or specific political ideology or agenda, whether he be a lone nutjob or a member of a broader conspiracy.

    Whether you think this would apply to Kennedy and Johnson I'll leave up to you. My own family in the 1960s were red necked Republicans from a deeply rural state, and as a part of cultural history let me just point out that it was widely assumed by these folks (who were Republicans almost to a man or to a woman) that Johnson had Kennedy killed.

    I'm not suggesting that they were correct, but that's what many people back then believed. To these folks, the idea that the opposing political party was entirely made up of self-serving and treacherous people, capable of killing their own, was entirely plausible.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-21-2023, 12:49 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      Hi Herlock. I'm only barely following this conversation, and have no pony in the race, but your above commentary strikes me as somewhat simplistic.

      In American politics, running mates in one political party often represent very different factions or forces within that party. The theory behind these odd "marriages of convenience" is to appeal to a broader political base. The 'party' might also find it wise to have a candidate pick a running mate whose beliefs, world view, etc., will contrast with the candidate's own beliefs---either as a sort of balance, or to appeal to a specific region of the country that the party needs to win in order to secure the White House. Thus, these political 'marriages' can be complicated and counterintuitive.

      Perhaps this isn't the best example, but look no further than Donald John Trump, a hedonist and playboy from Queens, New York who teamed up with Mike Pence, an Evangelical Christian from the Midwest. The two men have little or nothing in common in world view or otherwise, which is precisely why Pence was chosen--because he was Trump's opposite and could bring in a certain faction within the larger party. In the end, this proved unnecessary for the Evangelicals strangely and unexpectedly embraced the hedonist from Queens as one of their own.

      So, in theory, an assassination even in American politics could be seen as a 'regime change' to someone with an extreme or specific political ideology or agenda, whether he be a lone nutjob or a member of a broader conspiracy.

      Whether you think this would apply to Kennedy and Johnson I'll leave up to you. My own family in the 1960s were red necked Republicans from a deeply rural state, and as a part of cultural history let me just point out that it was widely assumed by these folks (who were Republicans almost to a man or to a woman) that Johnson had Kennedy killed.

      I'm not suggesting that they were correct, but that's what many people back then believed. To these folks, the idea that the opposing political party was entirely made up of self-serving and treacherous people, capable of killing their own, was entirely plausible.
      Hi Roger,

      I wouldn’t dispute any of the above and I agree that the part of my post that you are referring to was perhaps over-simplistic. For me though, we have to look at the evidence that is available. Motives can certainly debated and the motive for wanting Kennedy dead, whoever was responsible, was unlikely to have been anything other than politically motivated. By objection on here though is that it’s assumed by some that this is in itself evidence of a conspiracy (although I realise that this isn’t what you yourself are implying)
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • I continue to ask the question:

        Were these conspirators either brilliant planners who had the know how and resources to fake and forge and plant evidence and who could manipulate witnesses and set up corrupt post assassinations investigations involving 100’s of people……or were they a bunch of clueless amateurs who chose a patsy that could be traced back to the FBI and whose employment history they couldn’t control (and who had no control over anyone else in that building) and who put a gunman in the worst location imaginable, who set up a corrupt autopsy but forgot about Parkland, who displayed the wrong rifle to the world and who apparently couldn’t even set up an escape plan that a toddler would have had no difficulty in arranging.

        Which is it? You can’t have both. And yet conspiracy theorists continually expect us to accept a ‘blend’ of the two. Take your pick.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          Hi George,

          When did it become classified? I ask this because by the end of 1966 David Lifton, a graduate student, contacted Sibert to ask him some questions about their report, which had find its way into at least 2 books (“The Second Oswald” by Richard Popkin & “Inquest” by Edward Epstein). Even though Sibert told Lifton he couldn’t comment on any of his questions, it seems that the report itself wasn’t kept much of a secret, or at least, it certainly doesn’t seem to have been classified shortly after 22 November 1963.


          What do you mean by that last sentence? What script?


          Although I had noted that some witnesses stated that the 2nd and 3rd shot were close together, I wasn’t aware that this is supposed to be common knowledge. However, the thing is that you wrote “The testing of how fast the rifle could be cycled was irrelevant as the critical factor was the number of witnesses claiming that the second and third shots were close to simultaneous, and therefore could not have been fired by the same bolt action rifle.” as if it were an established fact. So I thought you’d have such a list, which is why I asked you about those figures. My stance is: for anybody to make any kind of statement, take any kind of stance, one has to know how many witnesses thought the 2nd and 3rd shot were “close(r) together or almost simultaneously” and how many actually didn't or thought otherwise. Maybe I’ll compile such a list.


          I haven’t studied this particular subject in any detail, George, but if it was a lie, then it must have been a humongous one. Also, why would anybody need that Pullman car there, anyway, if it’s supposed to have been a lie? What would have been the goal of introducing it?

          All the best,
          Frank
          Hi Frank,

          1. I can't recall where I read that statement, but if it was available to Lifton in 1966 I must have mis-remembered the classified part. Was it in the Warren Report?

          2. Before he was made aware of the SBT.

          3. I didn't realise this was in dispute.

          4. The goal in shifting the Dining car from the railway yard (where Boone placed it) to the car park behind the picket fence was so the man standing at the back of the Pullman would have a close-up unobstructed view of the area behind the picket fence and be able to deny that anyone was there when the head shot was fired.

          Cheers, George
          “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
          "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
          "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
          "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
            Oswald seemed to jump the queue and was given the job of filling orders, a job which required him to visit all the floors of the TSBD. Only once Oswald was inside the TSBD was the decision made (although it may well have been anticipated) to drive the motorcade past the TSBD.
            Is this a load of bollocks I see before me?

            So this man, whose work routine took him to all the floors of the TSBD, and who had been identified as a potential 'patsy' long before he took the job on 16th October, was suddenly ideally placed to be framed as a lone assassin five weeks later, when the motorcade was due to pass? If Oswald was not the assassin, and knew nothing about a conspiracy to set him up, it was a minor miracle that Oswald wasn't remotely interested in watching the motorcade, but had taken himself off from his fellow workers as it passed the building, so there would be no witnesses to what he was doing instead. His claim not to have been aware that JFK was even going to be in Dallas that day is not credible, but it would have suited the conspirators to believe it, because he absolutely had to be otherwise occupied and completely alone when the real gunman/men opened fire.

            Of course you don’t need to be Castro to see it is ludicrous that any assassin would shoot from his workplace on a whim; any rational person can see that. But if the assassin is presented as a malcontent, a weirdo, a psycho, a Marxist then the US public might just accept that. If he kills a policeman less than an hour later then that removes lingering doubts about his guilt. Not many will question the narrative much after that, save the usual suspects.
            The usual suspects? You mean all those who have seen 'conspiracy' writ large in their tea leaves ever since?

            I find it incredible that you are now attempting to qualify Castro's 'screamingly obvious' point, that 'no assassin' would surely choose his own work place if he was planning to take out a leading political figure, by turning the argument on its head. Black really can be white in the conspiracy theorist's world. Now it was perfectly logical to set up Oswald for this previously unworkable scenario, because the 'assassin' in this case would not have been acting 'on a whim' [no shi* Sherlock - how many people take rifles to work 'on a whim'?] and could be presented as just the kind of character who would shoot from his own work place, before scarpering and killing a policeman for good measure. So who was Castro referring to, when making his 'screamingly obvious' observation about assassins, if not Oswald?

            Oswald failed to be the perfect ‘patsy’ when he was not killed while resisting arrest. Remember that no less than three policemen drew a gun on him that afternoon yet he made it back to DPD jail, possibly a unique first in that part of America. His execution by Ruby was clumsy and was probably the moment that most of the world smelled a rat, but by then most assumed Oswald was guilty anyhow. Had he been gunned down as planned by a member of the DPD then I doubt his name would be much more remembered than those of other alleged assassins of the 1960s.
            What surprises me most is when I see normally intelligent people flick a switch inside their brain box to turn off their critical thinking when it interferes with their conspiracy thinking.

            Oswald could never have been turned into a perfect patsy, for numerous 'screamingly obvious' reasons. It is to the DPD's credit that he wasn't gunned down at the earliest opportunity, but was instead arrested and taken into custody. I suppose you would argue that if Jack Ruby had not seized an opportunity to shoot Oswald, or had failed to kill him, it would have made no difference because someone else would have made sure he never stood trial. There is no evidence that this would have been the case, so it all stops with Ruby, and the conspiracy theories start from there.

            You referred a while back to Magna Carta and the fair hearing that Oswald never got, but this isn't evidence that he was an innocent victim of conspirators. You may believe with every bone in your body that he was an unwitting patsy - despite all the logistical objections - but this highlights the double standard in your thinking and disqualifies you from taking the moral high ground on Oswald's behalf. Where was the fair hearing for the person or persons you and many others have accused of JFK's assassination - and the framing and 'execution' of an innocent man for the crime? The double standard is bad enough when individuals or groups have been accused by name, but it still applies to all the nameless, faceless people implicated by this emotional drive to give Oswald a free pass.

            Of course Oswald deserved a fair trial, but so did everyone else who has been accused over the years.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
              I haven’t studied this particular subject in any detail, George, but if it was a lie, then it must have been a humongous one. Also, why would anybody need that Pullman car there, anyway, if it’s supposed to have been a lie? What would have been the goal of introducing it?
              That would be my question too, Frank.

              A single Pullman car would have been quite distinctive if it was there, but even more conspicuous by its absence, if someone had invented one for no apparent reason. It could instantly have been established as a lie, if it was simply never there to be seen by anyone or captured on film. In that case it may just as well have been an escaped giraffe. Where's the relevance?

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                And I almost forget (and as some posts have disappeared)
                Click image for larger version Name:	3518706E-C435-48CA-B8ED-59C11A78003A.jpg Views:	0 Size:	179.1 KB ID:	805936






                Still not a single response or acknowledgement from George, Fishy, PI or Cobalt on this Caz. The four that yell ‘fake’ at everything without proof. I post proof that they’ve been using a fake as evidence and there’s not a peep from them. That’s their version of integrity.
                Proof?? Opinions from two forums and a blog owned by whatever this is:

                Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	228
Size:	24.4 KB
ID:	806757

                Thank you for establishing your standard of proof. We'll keep that in mind for all your posts, particularly the ones where you're yelling fake, fake, fake. What was it that you posted:
                "Anyone who says fake is a ......." (insert expletive here).

                PROOF from Mr Integrity
                Click image for larger version

Name:	lol-rotflmao.gif
Views:	236
Size:	29.1 KB
ID:	806758
                “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
                "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
                "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
                "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Proof?? Opinions from two forums and a blog owned by whatever this is:

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	228
Size:	24.4 KB
ID:	806757

                  Thank you for establishing your standard of proof. We'll keep that in mind for all your posts, particularly the ones where you're yelling fake, fake, fake. What was it that you posted:
                  "Anyone who says fake is a ......." (insert expletive here).

                  PROOF from Mr Integrity
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	lol-rotflmao.gif
Views:	236
Size:	29.1 KB
ID:	806758
                  Or that the National Archive (where it was said to have come from) conducted an extensive search and found absolutely no record of it.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Well that was a grown up post by George - not.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • No conspiracy

                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • As I might have guessed. Bugliosi exposed this fake too.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Conspiracy books are awash with evidence based on forged documents, out of context witness statements, crackpot photographic analyses, misrepresented scientific studies, and less-than-reliable sources.


                          An excellent website exposing the underhand tactics of conspiracy theorists amongst other things. As you will see, it’s states that even most conspiracy theorists accept that the document is a fake. Some good stuff on what kind of person Mark Lane is too.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • It’s always surprising what you find out when you take the time to read more that just conspiracy theorist stuff. CT’s are forever banging on about the Neely Street backyard photographs being faked to incriminate Oswald despite the fact that no evidence of fakery has ever been found despite multiple tests. And despite the fact that Marina said that she took them. And despite the fact that Michael Paine saw one as far back as April.

                            But hey there’s even more. Oswald told Marina that he was going to send the photograph to The Militant to show that he was “ready for anything.” He did. And researcher Gus Russo contacted them and spoke to the staff member that opened the envelope, Sylvia Weinstein. She thought that the photo was “kookie” because he was holding Trotskyist and Stalinist papers which led her to think that the sender was : “really dumb and totally naive.”

                            This was 4 months before Oswald was arrested for handing out FPCC leaflets on Canal Street in New Orleans. Hal Verb (who is a conspiracy-orientated researcher) also contacted The Militant and spoke to a male staff member who confirmed their receipt of the photograph.

                            Another bit of conspiracist nonsense disposed of.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                              There are no cracks.... Where did you get grey-blue from?


                              There are indeed cracks.

                              And your claim that the jacket allegedly worn by Oswald could have looked grey or brown is disproven, as I said, because the said jacket was grey-blue, not grey-brown.

                              Where did I get it from?

                              Why, from the Warren Commission itself!



                              EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238

                              Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize
                              this jacket?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                                The CBS results still prove you wrong, even when you move the goalposts.
                                Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1strun of 5.

                                William Fitchett: 6.50 seconds (3 borderline hits) on his 1st run of 3.

                                John Bollendorf: 6.80 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1st run of 4.

                                You do understand the meaning of the word 1st, don't you?
                                Just about. But I also understand, just about, the word 'exceeded.'​

                                You could just about argue that Flitchett was better than the assassin (but with no head shot.) The others are as good.

                                Oswald got off three shots, two of which hit, in 8.4 seconds.

                                Al Sherman got 2 hits in 5.0 seconds, beating Oswald by 3.4 seconds.

                                William Fitchett got 3 hits in 6.5 seconds, beating Oswald by 1.9 seconds.

                                John Bollendorf got 2 hits in 6.8 seconds, beating Oswald by 1.6 seconds.

                                So three men exceeded Oswald's performance on their first try, by getting at least as many hits in shorter times with an unfamiliar weapon.

                                It wasn't Oswald's first time to use a Carcano rifle.

                                It wasn't Oswald's first time to use a bolt action rifle.

                                It wasn't even Oswald's first time to attempt an assassination.


                                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X