Skip to comments.The JFK files
Posted on 06/01/2007 5:36:49 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
A storied former prosecutor scrutinizes one of the most debated crimes in American history The murder of President John F. Kennedy has provoked by far more suspicion, argument, obsession, and especially book-publishing than any similar event in American history. Now famed lawyer and true-crime writer Vincent Bugliosi has produced what he hopes will be the book to exceed all others. "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" may do that, in weight (5.3 pounds) as well as content, but it's clear that if his editor hadn't insisted he turn over the manuscript after 21 years of labor, the almost-superhuman effort might have wrecked his health.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
All you have to do is prove it and you can’t.
You get your information from the likes of Oliver Stone and he even had the good sense to admit he was only making a movie and not a documentary. You think serious investigation is listening to your cousin’s uncle’s hairdresser.
So there is a reason why Conspirary Nuts are called that. You either hate the government or hate the Stonecutters or whatever group is on your list. You check under your beds for the CIA or the Skull and Bones.
The JFK Assassination was the start of the carnival atmosphere that morphed into “No Plane Hit The Pentagon” and holigrams were used for the Twin Towers. Substitute LBJ and you get “Bush did it”.
Because of lazy or hateful people like you, Free Republic is the mirror image of the Democratic Underground.
No this was the start of the modern age.
Ruby was dying of cancer, he gained notoriety, he was famous, then he died. Maybe he needed money, I don’t know, and neither do you. It is a tangled mess of facts and suppositions.
Ruby shot Oswald because he thought that would make him a national hero and never be convicted, like a parent who kills a child molester,etc.
Would you like to buy a very nice bridge I have in Brooklyn?
Lots of name calling from someone that has so many “facts”.
Why did Jackie run to marry a butt ugly gazillionaire who had absolutely nothing in common with her lifestyle - other than to get the protection this nefarious fellow could offer?
And why would a go go bar owner suddenly become a uber-choir boy to stamp out evil in the world and assassinate Oswald before he was interrogated?
Because he did not want Jackie to undergo “the pain” of dealing with a trial?
“Ruby was dying of cancer,”
Ruby was healthy at the time of the assassination.
Why did Anna Nicole Smith run to marry a butt ugly gazillionaire who had absolutely nothing in common with her lifestyle
Easier to explain that one than the one who married Yasser Arafat.
“It is a tangled mess of facts and suppositions.”
It’s not a tangled mess. There are facts- which you refuse to read or believe. And there are the suppositions- which you put forth with no regard for the facts which you refuse to read or believe.
So you think that Ruby’s “reasons” for killing Oswald are facts?
I do not understand why people are against the idea that a “coup” took place in 1963.
You had a ruthless politician aka “Landslide” who not only was OK with the results and the total whitewash of the murder of a President, but was also instrumental in presenting us all with the “welfare state” and the almost total reversal of perceived roles of the two mainstream political Parties.
The racist Democrat plantation mentality has taken hold in our country, and folks such as yourself are somehow unable to connect the dots.
OK, you can consider me as you wish.
I’m tired of dealing with puny minds anyhow.
You and spanalot are a piece of work, you both know how to do nothing but insult, perhaps because you’ve found yourselves on a thread with people who actually have some knowledge on the subject matter.
These JFK threads are useless with people like you, who think it’s so “obvious” that there was a conspiracy. There was no “whitewash” there was a HUGE investigation, and this crime has been investigated ENDLESSY SINCE.
There is more than enough information out there for all the people who BOTHER TO RESEARCH IT to conclude that anyone who has RESEARCHED all of the evidence and STILL believes in a conspiracy is either a kook or the posessor of a puny mind.
Every bit of “proof” of a conspiracy has been smashed to smithereens countless times, Bugliosi is now here to crush the smithereens into granules for the benefit of puny minds like yours, but you would have to bother to take the time to look at the evidence against Oswald instead of insulting people who HAVE.
You’re on the wrong side of this one pal, just like the conspiracy nuts who don’t believe 9/11 happened the way it did despite the mountains of evidence, there is a similar mountain of evidence against Oswald, only you’re too lazy to confront it, then you would realize what an ass you’ve been.
I paid pretty close attention at the time because Kennedy was in Houston the day before he was killed in Dallas and my husband had a premonition that he would be killed while in Texas. I was 23 years old at home with a 5 week old infant so I was able to see read or hear everything that was said in the news at the time. My husband was not in the habit of having premonitions, never having had one before or since that I am aware of.
I have since read several books about the murder and the people involved and I do have some opinions. But I have NOT made it my life's work studying the event. I think the Warren Commision report was written to calm the country, not necessarily to expose the truth.
See post #133.
Ruby’s “reasons” came from his own mouth seconds after pulling the trigger and never changed. Prove them wrong.
Lee Edward Bowers, Jr. (January 12, 1925, Dallas, Texas August 9, 1966, Dallas, Texas) was a key witness to the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas in 1963. At the moment of the assassination he was operating the Union Terminal Company's interlocking tower, overlooking the parking lot just north of the grassy knoll and west of the Texas School Book Depository. He had an unobstructed view of the rear of the conrete pergola and the stockade fence atop the knoll.
When asked by the Warren Commission, "Now, were there any people standing on the high side high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?" Bowers testified that at the time the motorcade went by on Elm Street, two men were in the area, standing 10 to 15 feet (3 to 5 m) apart near the Triple Underpass, and did not appear to know each other. One was "middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers" and the other was "younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket." One or both were still there when the first police officer arrived "immediately" after the shooting. Many assumed that Bowers meant that these men were standing behind the stockade fence at the top of the grassy knoll.
However, two years later when Bowers was interviewed by assassination researchers Mark Lane and Emile de Antonio for their documentary film Rush to Judgment, he clarified that these two men were on the opposite side of the fence, and that no one was behind the fence when the shots were fired. Photographs of the grassy knoll during the assassination show heavy-set, middle-aged Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson and a younger man, whom Hudson estimated was in his late twenties, standing on the stairway leading from Elm Street up to the stockade fence (a third man stands a few steps below them). Bowers was not sure if he could see the older man after the shootings, and a photograph show Hudson sitting down on the steps at that time.
Self explanatory for gunowners. Bullets carry debris along the path for those who know nothing about firearms.
Dream on kid. You pro-report mavens are also "woefully or deliberately" ignoring some of the basic facts written in the Report and in the later House investigation of 1978, - and as seen in the Z-film.
You fellas cannot refute the timeline facts I've posted here [#16] that makes Specters single bullet theory, for all practical purposes, impossible to duplicate.
Without that single bullet theory, the 'Oswald as the lone gunman theory' falls apart.
Admit it. - The Report's theories are fatally flawed; - so why defend them?
I truly do not understand why you fellas are so absolutist about defending these gov't theories.
>>>”Prove them wrong” LOL! That is hysterical, you posted them. You prove the truth in the words of someone that 10 close friends said is insane.
How does he reconcile the timeline problem I've outlined in post #16?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.