[GreatOne]

Really fascinating stuff. I've never believed that Oswald ever fired a shot. It's nice to be able to see some contemporaneous writing about all the lying crap that was going on back then in order to frame Oswald. I particularly liked the parts about the police radio stating that the initial shots came from the overpass, the gun identity switch, the paraffin test, and the release of Oswald's description prior to the cop being killed.

I dearly hope that some of the photos and videotape confiscated by the feds that day remain in existence and will be released when the rest of the file becomes public. Imagine if the Zapruder film had been confiscated as well? Sure, a gunshot from the back causes his head to go backwards - what a bunch of crap?

[Woodkirk]

On A&E they show the documentary: "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and it is quite revelatory along this line, especizlly the picture of the gunman behind the fence on the grassy knoll. In my opinion those who participated in the coverup of the real killers are as guilty as those who planned it.

[Shooter 2.5]

That article is so filled with BS I can't believe you spent the time to post it. The pictures of the rifle were taken as the rifle was being removed from the sixth floor. More pictures of the rifle were taken as it was transported. More pictures of the rifle were taken as the police and investigators were displaying it. What more do you need?

The Warrren Commision mambers had close ties to the government? It was a government investigation.

It would be better to post the entire Warren Commission findings that this BS.

[Shooter 2.5]

. "I particularly liked the parts about the police radio stating that the initial shots came from the overpass,"

I guess you never realized that there were two police officers ON the overpass, one on each side accompanied by a group of railroad workers from the yard watching the procession. Not to mentioned that no trajectory could have hit the President at that angle. The limo had one of those new fangled inventions called a windshield.

[DreamWeaver]

Bump

For later reading.

[mlo]

Here is a good example of the misinformation widely believed about this case.

It's nice to be able to see some contemporaneous writing about all the lying crap that was going on back then in order to frame Oswald. I particularly liked the parts about the police radio stating that the initial shots came from the overpass,

I have the recordings. I can assure you that they say no such thing.

the gun identity switch,

There is no switch.

the paraffin test,

Paraffin tests are not certain. Did you know that they had an agent fire the same gun three times and did a paraffin test on him and it came up negative too?

and the release of Oswald's description prior to the cop being killed.

From an eyewitness that saw him shooting from the book depository. That's evidence for his guilt, not for some kind of frame.

[Whilom]

Uh-oh, I can see where this is going: OBL was on the grassy knoll.

[Teacher317]

Can anyone please explain to me the justification for sealing the evidence for 75 years?
(especially in the execution of a public official!)

[verity]

Psst! I no longer care!!

[Ditto]

Do you know who Bertrand Russell was? That's as far as I got in reading this thread and as far as I needed to go to understand that this was really written by the KGB in Moscow. They went on a major push to invent and plant conspiracies implicating the CIA and Capitalists in the JFK assassination to obscure the fact that Oswald was a dedicated Marxist. Russell was their 'man in academia' from the 1920s till his death in the 70s. He spent a lifetime as a Soviet/Stalin apologist and was as red as they got.

[mlo]

Here is something else from Ken Rahn's site:

The rational thinker versus the paranoid

Presented with the same evidence for a mystery, the rational thinker and the paranoid respond very differently.

The rational thinker:	The paranoid:
1. Checks the evidence carefully and doesn’t rely on uncertain evidence	1. Grabs onto a few pieces of evidence and defends them inflexibly.
2. Doesn’t care which evidence he must let go.	2. Seemingly irrationally seizes onto something and won’t let go.
3. Seeks a realistic answer in simple and familiar processes.	3. Invokes complex, unrealistic scenarios controlled by powerful forces behind the scenes.
4. Accepts only what he can critically assess (falsifiable ideas).	4. Deals in explanations that can never be critically assessed (unfalsifiable theories).
5. Is willing to live with unresolved explanations for long periods.	5. Demands quick, even immediate explanations.
6. Accepts the roles of chance and human foibles.	6. Invents scenarios when nothing ever goes wrong.
7. Uses same rational approach in the rest of his life.	7. Approaches many other “events” in the same irrational, paranoid way. (i.e., both people are consistent across their lives.)
8. Finds empowering explanations.	8. Feels powerless before these huge forces (victims).
9. Accepts all demonstrated evidence.	9. Will not face evidence that destroys his theory.
10. Is willing to live with some fraction of unexplained or contradictory evidence.	10. Insists on fitting everything into his explanation, often by explaining difficult items as further evidence of conspiracy.
11. Tries to keep everything in proportion.	11. Often seizes single pieces of evidence and blows them out of proportion.
12. Will change ideas a new evidence emerges.	12. Sticks to preconceived notion regardless of new evidence.
13. Open, flexible, empowered, strong.	13. Preconceived, rigid, victimlike, cowardly.

 

[Focault's Pendulum]

bump for later read.

[carton253]

You might want to check with Jimmy James. I think he knows who did it.

[Shooter 2.5]

" No U.S. television program or mass circulation newspaper has challenged the permanent basis of all the allegations——that Oswald was the assassin, and that he acted alone."

I can tell you don't live in Dallas. Every once in a while, a publication will assign some pup reporters to investigate the JFK assassination. Reporters that believe the conspiracy nonsense. After they investigate, it always the same. A short little byline where the reporter realizes that Oswald acted alone. The last major publication I read where the editors tried to believe in a conspiracy was the Texas Monthly in it's 35th anniversary edition. The reporters were associate editor Michael Hall and assistant editor Pamela Colloff. They both realized through their investigations that Oswald acted alone.

No mass circulation publications? Another lie in your article.

[Henchman]

Most of this is nonsense. E.G. There were pictures of the Rifle leaving the Book Depository, therefor there was no alteration. Secret Service did not conduct the investigation of the assassination, the FBI did; therefor the Secret Service was not in the picture. As the FBI stated "We're in charge here.", not the local police or Secret Service, thus end the conspiracy thoughts here. The Service was present through the whole operation therfor there was no need to go back and correct the matter.

There is anamosity between most competant Law Enforcement agencies and the FBI. There is no collusion between them although management cannot be trusted. However street cops and agents would talk if things were "wrong".

Attribute most of the problems to the incompetance of the FBI - ala ANTHRAX. The Bureau LOST!, Yes LOST Kennedy's brain. It was to be housed at the Smithsonian, but alas, the Bureau LOST EVIDENCE. Ah, why go on. Who actually killed Kennedy? For my money, it was the MOB. As Sam Giancana said, I should have taken out Bobby". What happened tpo the Organized Crime efforts of the Federal Gov't? The Bureau says they destroyed it - in essence, who is going to refute them?

[Lancey Howard]

The author published this piece on

SEPTEMBER 6, 1964 !!!

I had no idea that people were catching on to the whole 'Oswald shot Kennedy all by himself' fraud so quickly.
With all the evidence of fraud and corruption that has come up since then, it is amazing to find anybody who still believes that Oswald was the lone assassin.

A couple of days ago I watched a prominent LBJ biographer on TV. He has been studying the released phone conversations of LBJ and is extremely knowledgeable. He said that even Johnson was aware right from the git-go that things could not have happened the way the propagandists were spinning them. He knew that others were involved. He made a clutch decision to go along with the spin because he did not wish to undermine the public's confidence in their government and, more importantly, he did not want to upset foreign relations with the Soviets.