« Chronicle of a flip-flop | truthseeker77's Blog | McCain secretly advising Obama on new administration hirings (report) »
A few thoughts on the 45th anniversary of Lee Harvey Oswald's death
Poor Harvey Oswald. Virtually no one ever remembers the anniversary of his death and this is understandable, since a much more important and charismatic figure passed two days earlier.
But I have sympathy for the guy because millions of children are told in school every year that Oswald committed the worst or one of the worst crimes in American history, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some of you might disagree with me, specially those who believe Jack Ruby's excuse that he murdered Oswald in order to save Jackie, a woman he never met, from the inconvenience of witnessing a painful trial.
Two LHO-related snippets
But I have sympathy for the guy because millions of children are told in school every year that Oswald committed the worst or one of the worst crimes in American history, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some of you might disagree with me, specially those who believe Jack Ruby's excuse that he murdered Oswald in order to save Jackie, a woman he never met, from the inconvenience of witnessing a painful trial.
Two LHO-related snippets
Hoover to LBJ (11-23-63):See also what autopsy doctor and serial liar James Humes did as soon as he learned of Oswald's death:
We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."
Advertisement
Poor Harvey Oswald. Virtually no one ever remembers the anniversary of his death and this is understandable, since a much more important and charismatic figure passed two days earlier.
_____
W3e would if we celebrated the lives and crimes of murderers. Why should we celebrate the life of Lee Harvey Oswald? Because an ugly for-profit cottage industry of conspirabunkers claim he was framed, but present no evidence for that claim, or for nany of their others?
_____
But I have sympathy for the guy because millions of children are told in school every year that Oswald committed the worst or one of the worst crimes in American history,
_____
He was found to have committed the assassination. (His killing of Tippit doesn't help his claim that he was innocent: before he was even suspected of killing JFK he killed a cop to avoid being arrested for not buying a ticket to see the film?)
_____
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
_____
Easily said. None of that "overwhelming evidence" is ever presented. And you present none.
_____
Some of you might disagree with me, specially those who believe Jack Ruby's excuse that he murdered Oswald in order to save Jackie, a woman he never met, from the inconvenience of witnessing a painful trial.
_____
One needn't believe Ruby to conclude that Oswald killed JFK. Logic is able to separate the two instead of conflating and enjambing coincidences. As Norman Mailer put it: that there might have been consipiracies in the making at the same time does not preclude the fact that Oswald killed JFK.
As for the destruction of pre-autopsy-report "notes": such is only controversial and "overwhelming evidence" with the illiterate. When I wrote a paper at university I began with notes, then after finishing the paper "destroyed" those preliminary notes. What was I "covering up"? Nothing; I was getting rid of the no longer relevant. Do you preserve your used toilet paper?
November 25, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
serial liar James Humes
_____
You present no evidence for that assertion. The illiterate don't know the difference between, on one hand, unevidenced assertion, and on the other, proof. The far-right lunatic fringers, such as you, absolutely refuse to learn the difference.
November 25, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And is it not true that Humes invited Dr. Finck to examine Kennedy's brain on the 29th of November when Humes had already examined the brain in Nov. 25th? Yet Humes always denied this despite there being memos corroborating Finck's acoount
November 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "controversy" about the brain has been going on since it was first "discovered" that his brain was "missing".
That conspirabunk and another were blown out of the water at the same time by a member of JFK's inner circle.
There've been several irreconcilable versions not only of the conspirabunk that JFK's brain went "missing," but also that he was put in a bronze coffin in Dallas, but was in a different wooden coffin when removed from the plane in DC.
Bobby Kennedy feared that future exhibits about the assassination would include samples of brain tissue and body fluids taken at the time of the autopsy. He couldn't stand the thought, so he had them put into the bronze coffin, along with other materials, and dumped at sea.
November 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding us about the contradicting times given by different witnesses as to when the coffin arrived and the appearance of it. That would have been another big blow to the prosecution of Oswald. the x-ray technician (Custer) saw a wooden coffin.
Reasonable doubt? Hell yeah!
November 25, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The person who blew that conspirabunk out of the water was a decades-long member of JFK's inner circle. In short: it is a non-issue.
November 25, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
November 25, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please take note in my previous post, the test results of a rifle /similar/ to the one Oswald supposedly used. That test proved it was possible to fire the shots in the time frame required.
However, the tests were not with the actual rifle and not with a rifle equipped as the original was. This is the most credible evidence ever given to establish the shots fired by Oswald were possible.
Any attorney in the world, by simply pointing out the original rifle was not the one tested would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of any judge or juror.
Whether Oswald did it or not, the question is moot. He would not have been convicted in a fair trial.
November 25, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way to predict that Oswald would not have been found guilty in a fair trial. Especially as his rifle would have been used in evidence, including in such a test, if one was conducted.
There is still the fact of J. D. Tippet's murder: Why would Oswald kill a cop who was attempting to arrest him for having snuck into the movie theater without a ticket? Was the price of the ticket worth murder? Was Oswald that "crazy"? Or was he, as has been surmised, running from something?
And yet again "truthseeker" shows he is a right-wing troll not interested in truth. We don't commemorate JFK's murder because he had was "more important" and had "charisma" and "passed". We commemorate his murder because he was an innocent murder victim, and an elected official who was "diselected" against the will of the voters.
Nor do we blame the victim of that murder, thus reveal the usual far-right contempt for him, and its wont to spit on his grave, not for what he was, but for what they say he was.
The far-right -- "truthseeker" included -- can't resist tearing things down on false bases. They especially relish doing so when the targets of their smears and trashings aren't present to talk back. And we already know "truthseeker" hates dialogue and loves to lecture, as we've seen him post tracts, and block comments thereon, in effort to get in the only word.
See "Oswald's Ghost" on PBS for the 40-years-on views of the assassination, and where all the claims of "conspiracy" have arrived. Edward Jay Epstein especially makes the case on that point. But so does Norman Mailer.
The only one clinging to that fiction is the one who started it all: Mark Lane. He actually claims those who said and say there wasn't a conspiracy because some 60-plus per center of the population believe their was. He leaves out the fact that it is as easy to believe a false belief as it is to believe a true belief. Believing a thing doesn't make it so.
November 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You assume Oswald killed Tippit, but the firing pin in his revolver was messed up. It misfired when the cop grabbed him in the theater.
Plus barium and other elements in the books he handled could have triggered a positive result.
November 25, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assume Oswald killed Tippit, . . . .
_____
Oswald and Tippit weren't the only persons in the theater: there were other PATRONS who witnesseed it.
_____
but the firing pin in his revolver was messed up.
_____
If that were true, then with what gun did Oswald shoot Tippit?
_____
It misfired when the cop grabbed him in the theater.
_____
If the firing pin were "messed up," then the gun -- as you wish to imply -- couldn't have fired.
If the gun "misfired" "when the cop grabbed him" -- the gun fired, did it -- then I guess the firing pin wasn't "messed up".
_____
Plus barium and other elements in the books he handled could have triggered a positive result.
_____
"[C]ould have" is not "did".
You've still failed to address the question rather than make shit up in effort to sidestep it:
Why would Oswald, who no one has said was insane, kill Tippit* if he hadn't done anything?
_____
"Gotcha": Tippit wasn't killed in the movie theater; Oswald tried to elude police by hiding in the theater. The police were called because he hadn't bought a ticket. Why did he try to shoot the cop/s in the theater over not having bought a ticket?
November 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
dude, when did I say Tippit was killed in the movie theater? I said Oswald attempted to shoot a cop, according to the cop, in the movie theater, and the gun misfired. Can you read?
November 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I put Tippit in the movie theater -- where itn fact he was not -- and you accepted it without comment.
But I'll ask again: why would the innocent Oswald attempt to shoot a cop over a ticket that cost less than a dollar?
And what was Oswald doing in a movie theater, well away from his place of employment, toward the end of his lunch hour?
Anyone can ask questions, of course. I'm simply asking a few pertinent questions about Oswald instead of pretending there are none about him becuase of the unevvidenced presumption that, bvecause others had to have done it, he was therefore innocent -- no questions asked.
Even Edward Jay Epstein, one of the earliest to jump onto the "conspiracy" bandwagon, points to the fact that, after forty years not a shred of evidence for it has been found. See "Oswald's Ghost" on PBS.
November 25, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conspiracy nuts like "truthseeker" are not interested in answers. They're interested only in more and more questions.
Keeps the conspiracy and their reason for being alive!
November 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... every year it gives the conspiracy folks something to do!
November 25, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Zapruder film clearly shows the chain of events.
The first shot came from in front, probably from the _south_ knoll, aimed at the junction of the neck and shoulders, just as soldiers are trained to do.
However, the limo was on a downward slope so the bullet hit high in the throat.
As it had been raining that morning, a signal had been arranged to pump an umbrella up and down if the shot missed. There probably was no time to change the signal so the huge risk of being the only person with an umbrella had to be taken.
Immediately the signal was given, the second shot was fired, probably from a building to the southward, but since the limo driver had slammed on the brakes, it hit Connally instead.
Connally's reaction was dramatic, so the high-risk shooter to the rear, in the Depository or Dal-Tex buildings, instantly took the money shot.
Kennedy was not slammed back in his seat, he was spun around to the left by a bullet from the rear that tangentially hit on the right side of his skull. His back didn't even touch the seat until he was practically in Jackie's lap, and then it was only because the limo was accelerating.
To me, the truth of Oswald's involvement is nothing compared to the admission that multiple people were involved and allowed to escape scott-free.
November 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're an expert on physics, and ballistics, and forensics, etc., etc.
Er -- not so by the way: umbrellas are often used in sunny climes because of the sun, not rain.
November 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean "overwhelming speculation to the contrary." There is no actual evidence of more than one gunman in Dallas, and although he was never convicted of the crime, an enormous mountain of evidence indicates Lee Harvey Oswald alone murdered President Kennedy, Gov. Connally and Officer Tippett.
That's the most reasonable scenario, simply because alternative theories cannot present a realistically dischargable conspiracy without coupling it to a supernatually efficient cover-up, involving everyone from the first Dallas investigators on the scene to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Take away the idea of a cover-up, and all conspiracy theories collapse.
The assassination conspiracy cult has become, over the years, more and more fringe as fewer and fewer reasonable people can accept, 45 years later, the science-fiction fable of a dark, wide-ranging scheme against the horney prince of Camelot.
November 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops... he... uh... shot Connally... who survived to serve in the Nixon White House.
At that point... he was dead to me.
November 25, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, polls show that lone-nuts are the fringe.
Welcome to the minority.
November 25, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very comfortable here. The majority voted for Bush. Twice.
November 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make up your mind. First you bragged about the conspiracy theorists being too few. Now all of a sudden when you realize that you screwed up, you claim to be proud of being in a minority.
November 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only two guns were found. Both belonged to Oswald.
Those who've never seen either have discovered any number of flaws or malfunctioning of those guns to "prove" that they couldn't have done that they are said to bhave been done: killed JFK, and killed Tippit.
Still, only those two guns were found, and those were tied directly to the assassination of JFK and murder of Tippit.
And there's still that scene in the movie theater, in which Oswald, who "didn't do anything" except sneak into the theater instead of buying a ticket -- what explains that? he wasn't done with work for the day -- which ticket couldn't have cost more than $1.00, attempted to shoot the cop who attempted to arrest him for the theft of the price of the ticket.
November 25, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since your reading comprehension sucks as badly as your detective abilities, let's review together my original quote: "Fewer and fewer reasonable people can accept, 45 years later, the science-fiction fable..." Fringe has nothing to do with numbers, it has to do with stupidity - your forte.
November 25, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Mark Lane is shown on-screen saying he has been successful disproving the Warren Commission because a majority -- some 60 per cent -- now believes there was a conspiracy.
He doesn't note that one can't prove a negative. Nor does he note that some 60+ per cent believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
November 25, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. testimony by Parkland doctors who said they observed a wound to Kennedy's back is not speculation. Witness testimony is evidence. Of course, others in Bethesda saw only an enry wound there, but others saw a big back-of-head wound (Sibert and O'neill).
So the jury would have have a huge doubt by seeing all these people contradicting each other.
November 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The jury would have had the autopsy photographs and xrays.
The contradictions between various witnesses isn't a surprise either. Especially when the Bethesda examiners saw the throat would as different than that described in Dallas. It leaves out that the Dallas description was of the initial examination of the wound. After that, the wound was altered in the effort to save JFK's life.
November 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lizard People shot JFK.
November 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and by the way, jnag, why have you said nothing about the impostor in Mexico City? You better run to that McAdams website, bible of all lone-nuts, and copy and paste the official answer here.
November 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and by the way, jnag,
_____
Personal attack noted. It's spelled JNagarya.
_____
why have you said nothing about the impostor in Mexico City? You better run to that McAdams website, bible of all lone-nuts, and copy and paste the official answer here.
_____
You mean the one reported by J. Edgar Hoover? Convenient how conspirabunkers believed him when the want, and reject his word when they want.
1. Hoover was a thug, and I never trust his word on anything except (a) when he's wearing his tu-tu, and (b) expounding his aesthetic views on ballet.
2. Did you see the 11/22/63 FBI memo which "shows" that George H. W. Bush was in Dallas on that day -- that being suspicious in view of the fact that he (a) was a resident of TX at the time, and (b) was (and is) a Republican?
I've seen it. Turns out it is a memo of a long distance phone call from Bush in Midland, TX to FBI headquarters in Dallas. And his giving of a name of a Republican he suspected was involved in the assassination.
The "hilarity" is that the person who provided the graphic of that memo is the same person who asserted that it proved that Bush was in Dallas that day -- but according to the actual words in that memo he was in Midland.
Careful with the most obvious details? Not so much. Why is the lying necessary?
I have no idea who "McAdams" is, but I suspect it might be the professor of critical thinking who happens to use the JFK assassination, and the conspirabunkerings around that, as object for learning critical thinking. And who is constantly, personally bashed by those who couldn't think their way out of an unenclosed field in broad daylight with compass, map, and gaggle of guides -- they are that personally threatened by refutations of their horseshit.
November 25, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. how paranoid. I might attack you for being a lone-nut and a bad thinker, but the "jnag" was simply an abbreviation of your long, weird name. Some here call me "77" in order to make my name shorter.
As of Hoover, I wonder what the jury would have thought about the FBI saying one thing and the Warren Commission saying another with its "single bullet" theory. Let's not forget the first report on the assassination was made by the FBI, but it was so flawed that the WC had to fix his mess with a new BS conclusion.
And you say, "You guys only believe Hoover when it's convenient", but remember, that we don't trust Hoover when he spews his BS in public, but that conversation with LBJ was not to be made public. That's why Hoover's words were deleted in what is now known as the "14 minute gap". They were sloppy though, and a transcript was left behind. Wanna hear the 14 minute gap?
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Fourteen_Minute_Gap
November 25, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. how paranoid.
_____
You see "conspiracies" where none exist. And that makes me paranoid? Your constant misdirection has control of you.
_____
I might attack you for being a lone-nut and a bad thinker, but the "jnag" was simply an abbreviation of your long, weird name.
_____
It's a personal attack. It isn't a "weird name".
_____
Some here call me "77" in order to make my name shorter.
_____
That isn't your name. Neither is "truthseeker".
_____
As of Hoover, I wonder what the jury would have thought about the FBI saying one thing and the Warren Commission saying another with its "single bullet" theory.
_____
I wonder what the jury would have said about the claim that the FBI memo put G. H. W. Bush in Dallas when in fact it put him in Midland.
_____
Let's not forget the first report on the assassination was made by the FBI, but it was so flawed that the WC had to fix his mess with a new BS conclusion.
_____
From which second-guessers who weren't there did you got that hogwash?
_____
And you say, "You guys only believe Hoover when it's convenient", but remember, that we don't trust Hoover when he spews his BS in public, but that conversation with LBJ was not to be made public.
_____
I see: so Hoover never lied in private. And how do you know that? Because you were there, in those private moments, and have documents and photographs and film and tapes [with gaps] to prove it.
_____
That's why Hoover's words were deleted in what is now known as the "14 minute gap". They were sloppy though, and a transcript was left behind. Wanna hear the 14 minute gap?
_____
And how long after Watergate did the conspirabunkers get the light-bulb alert to up the ante by inventing a "14 minute gap" (more than 14 being reserved for presidents) in a "transcript" of the tape?
November 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of this explains why William Henry Harrison & Zachary Taylor -- the only two men elected to the Presidency on the Whig party ticket -- died in office.
November 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even more curious: why did openly-"gay" Buchanan only serve ONE term?
November 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the notes were destroyed because of other damaging health-related information, completely unrelated to the assassination, but embarassing just the same. I don't know. I'm just sayin'.
November 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
*ding-dong*
November 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ding-dong" is everything loki has to say against Oswald's innocence. Oh yeah, he can say "conspiracy theorists are nuts" or something like that.
What a great debater ;-)
November 25, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stating the obvious... There's no debate, son.
November 25, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
NULL:
O.K. folks, hereat we have the primary issue and evidence. Kennedy with his back brace is said not to have be able to move his body position after having been hit in the throat (by front or rear).
It has been said that the combination of his wearing this brace and the effect upon his neural system by the 'money shot' caused his torso to lurch leftward as described by Null. All this, from the said money shot having come from the Schoolbook Depository Building (Warren Commission).
EXCUSE ME: But why does the Zappruder Film clearly show all of the president's ejected brain matter and portions of his skull flying leftward/left-upward as well? Heavens, did all of this cranial matter have it's own backbrace and independent neural network to cause it to fly leftward over Jackie's head as well?
Has this question ever been asked before?
If what is shown in the film were to show the brain matter flying forward and JFK collapsing leftward, that would confirm the Warren Report (the money shot from the rear). But as we clearly see, both the president's torso and brain matter fly to the left and what that indicates ought to be clearly understandable to anyone with a basic understanding of the laws of physics.
Final point: the limo didn't accelerate until after Jackie had climbed up onto the back of the seat and a secret service member had run up from behind, climbed up over the trunk and pushed her back down into the seat.
November 25, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has this question ever been asked before?
_____
At least dozens of times asked, and dozens of times answered.
There are also two variant explanations for Jacqueline's alleged climbing onto the trunk of the limosine:
1. Trying to escape.
2. To grab a chunk of JFK's brain.
There are at least four basics behind the conspirabunkering:
1. Denial. JFK was there, then suddenly gone -- no last words. There hasn't been any grieving, therefore the inability to let go.
2. Anti-gum'mint-ism. The effort to blame the gov't for the assassination isn't an effort to get the trtuh, or a concern with JFK; it is simply yet another opportunity for anti-gum'mint/American ranters to spew their hatred.
3. Greed and cash.
4. Unsavory hobbyists who view murders, especially of public figures and celebrities, as entertainment.
November 25, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it were possible to extrapolate ALL of the myriad coincidences surrounding the '63 assassination onto a scale of probability and then compile all of those statistical probabilities into one single probability, the simple question of whether or not there had been a conspiracy, I would venture to say that that probability would be off the charts in favor of the allegation that a conspiracy had taken place.
If indeed it is true that there was no conspiracy, then I would also venture that extraterrestrials were having a whole lot of fun with us on, before and after 11-22-63.
November 25, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The autopsy photographer, John Stringer, said that the film of the photos shown to him residing in the archives was "ANSCO" film, whereas the film he used was Ektachrome 3.
Where on earth did the ANSCO film come from?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=798
November 25, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another extremely important witness who said the photos she developed ARE NOT the ones in the archives: The woman who developed the autopsy pictures, Sandra K. Spencer.
Besides noting a 1 or 2 inch hole in Kennedy's back, she said the pictures in the archives shown to her in the 90's are not the same she developed in 1963.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E4D61038F932A3575BC0A96E958260
November 25, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. I said hole in "Kennedy's back", I meant to say "back of the head". I got confused for a sec.
November 25, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The limousine was not headed into a gale. There was no wind. It was traveling at a speed that allowed the secret service agend to run up from behind and hop onto the trunk.
The brain matter from the money shot veritably covered the motorcycle officer who was driving at the left rear of the limousine. If the money shot came from behind, why did not the brain matter fly forward and cover the driver's seat, the windshield and hood? One could understand how JFK's head and torso would jerk to the left side, given the theory of the Warren Commission Report, but not the ejected brain matter!
November 26, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink