Kennedy assassination -- how I remember it
West...@aol.com
On November 22, 1963, my 5th grade class had just returned from lunch.
My teacher Mrs. Campbell told us to open our books to page 135 when there
was a knock on the door. As she made her way to the classroom door, Mrs.
Campbell instructed us to begin to read silently. She seemed to be taking
a long time so I turned my head to look at her. She was talking to a
person I couldn't see.
Finally she shut the door and walked slowly to the front of the classroom.
I remember she was wearing a chocolate brown skirt and jacket with a
cream-colored blouse. The blouse was tied with a bow at the neckline.
She took off her glasses and said, "Children something terrible has
happened. I am not going to tell you what because you will find out soon
enough. I want you to go to the cloakroom quietly, put on your coats,
hats, and boots, then go home to your parents." I remember being confused
because she looked so sad.
When I went out into the hall to go home, I head another kid shout,
"Somebody killed President Kennedy!" I was stunned, shocked, and scared.
I went right home. My Dad was home from work. Both of my parents were
sitting in front of the TV and that is where my family stayed for the next
three days.
I saw Jack Ruby shoot Oswald. At the same time I watched as my father
jumped up from his chair screaming, "He shot the son of a bitch!" It was
surreal...like a movie...only it wasn't a movie.
Throughout my life, I've read every book published about the Kennedy
assassination. Anyone who believes that JFK's murder was committed only
by Oswald is naive. I don't which group or groups were the killers, but
no one will ever convince me that his murder was not a conspiracy.
I would like to know the truth before I die.
Nora Westcott
davidemerling
Of all the books you've read - have you read the Warren Report?
What percentage of the books that you've read were conspiracy oriented?
Have you noticed that there are many conflicting, mutually exclusive,
conspiracy theories?
Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"?
It seems that you WANT there to be a conspiracy because you don't seem to
have any idea who did it -or- how they did it. I don't see how you can be
so convinced there was a conspiracy without having some confident
knowledge in those areas.
The evidence against Oswald is absolutely overwhelming. Any conspiracy
theory that posits that Oswald did not fire any shots at the motorcade is
absolutely crazy. Out of necessity, it would involve believing an unwieldy
and convoluted conspiracy that, seemingly, focused more on framing Oswald
than actually killing the president. It is torture to the common sense
sector of your brain to listen/read about how all the evidence that points
toward Oswald has somehow been faked, planted, or lied about.
Whether Oswald was PART of a conspiracy is another issue. There is no
credible evidence of that - but, at least, I could see somebody making an
argument in that direction. But to claim Oswald was innocent of the
shooting is downright silly.
You can tell a theory is on the outer limits of reality when they take the
next step and claim that Oswald was also innocent of shooting Officer J.D.
Tippit.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
claviger
Nora,
If you can get past your preconceived notion you might find the truth.
Several LNs started off being CTs. I was absolutely convinced there was a
shot from the Grassy Knoll. After reading various books and theories I had
to admit there was not one scintilla of evidence to support my
misperception. Two excellent books I suggest you read are "Real Answers"
by Gary Cornwell and "Mortal Error" by Bonar Menninger. Both books are
well written and very readable. Real Answers is a good primer on this case
and Mortal Error offers a surprising conclusion based on ballistic
expertise.
Anthony Marsh
Have YOU even read the Warren Report yourself? No.
SO I don't think you have the moral superiority you seek to claim.
> What percentage of the books that you've read were conspiracy oriented?
>
> Have you noticed that there are many conflicting, mutually exclusive,
> conspiracy theories?
>
Have you noticed that the WC defender books have many conflicting,
mutually exclusive theories and deliberate misinformation?
> Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"?
>
Have you read my many messages pointing out the errors in that book?
> It seems that you WANT there to be a conspiracy because you don't seem to
> have any idea who did it -or- how they did it. I don't see how you can be
> so convinced there was a conspiracy without having some confident
> knowledge in those areas.
>
> The evidence against Oswald is absolutely overwhelming. Any conspiracy
> theory that posits that Oswald did not fire any shots at the motorcade is
> absolutely crazy. Out of necessity, it would involve believing an unwieldy
> and convoluted conspiracy that, seemingly, focused more on framing Oswald
> than actually killing the president. It is torture to the common sense
> sector of your brain to listen/read about how all the evidence that points
> toward Oswald has somehow been faked, planted, or lied about.
>
> Whether Oswald was PART of a conspiracy is another issue. There is no
> credible evidence of that - but, at least, I could see somebody making an
> argument in that direction. But to claim Oswald was innocent of the
> shooting is downright silly.
>
Again another WC defender who admits that he secretly believes that
Oswald was the lone shooter, but part of a conspiracy. Let me guess -
you think he was a Communist agent, right?
> You can tell a theory is on the outer limits of reality when they take the
> next step and claim that Oswald was also innocent of shooting Officer J.D.
> Tippit.
>
The two are not related.
You can tell a theory is on outer limits of reality when they resort to
a Single Bullet Theory and keep changing the frame number every day.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
jas
I've always thought it amusing that just because Ruby was successful in
killing Oswald, most CTers automatically jump to the "he was silenced by a
larger conspiracy" mode.
When you watch the old news footage, as like the History Channel's fine
documentary, "3 Shots that changed America," you can plainly see that the
concern for Oswald's safety with his transfer to the county jail was
overwhelming to reporters and the Dallas police. A lot of people were
afraid that exact scenario would occur -- a pissed off person getting
revenge at Oswald's deed in killing the president of the U.S. by taking a
shot. They even got an armored car -- but obviously didn't think through
the problem of getting Oswald INTO the armored car. They didn't even put a
flack jacket on him, the likes of which might have, if not stopped a
bullet completely, prevented the wound from being fatal.
Really, when you stop and think about it, what happened that Sunday
morning wasn't all that remarkable considering the heinousness of what
Oswald did, how it did it, and who he did it to.
I think the thing that *is* remarkable is how the Dallas police really
screwed up big time. And conspiracists, no, it wasn't a cover up, it was
the Dallas police screwing up, just like the SS agents given the task of
protecting the president.
The false assumption that conspiracists want to gravitate to is that
Oswald's murder absolutely wasn't a "screw-up," that mistakes like that
just don't happen. Truth is, they happen all the time, and by everyone, at
all levels of business and science, law enforcement, and government. No
one is exempt.
Just look at the news almost each and every day.
To the poster: those of us who were around and old enough to get what was
happening all have that horrible event welded into our brains, and nothing
will take it away. I think this is why so many people so many years later
feel so strongly about what they thought happened that weekend.
Of course you are free to think as you will, but as David suggested, do
yourself a favor and at least take the time to read Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History. It is much, much more than what many conspiracists want to call
it, as in, just another defender of the government's findings. It takes a
deep and graphic look into the nuts and bolts of the assassination, and
thoroughly discusses objectively both sides of the major conspiracy
theories.
If you want to be "up to date" with just about 99% of the JFK
assassination and its debate -- and I say "99%" only because the author
had to finish his book at some point in recent time, but the debate rages
on obviously -- this is the book you want to study.
bigdog
If you're not willing to accept the findings of the Warren Commision,
you will never know the truth. You can't find something if you keep
running away from it.
bigdog
I think the practice of giving high profile prisoners body armor began
because of what happened to Oswald. I don't think that had been a standard
practice before that. A classic case of hindsight being 20-20.
> Really, when you stop and think about it, what happened that Sunday
> morning wasn't all that remarkable considering the heinousness of what
> Oswald did, how it did it, and who he did it to.
>
There were many people who actually applauded what Ruby did. I remember
being glad when they announced Oswald had died. I still feel that way,
although it would have been better to fry him in the Texas electric chair.
> I think the thing that *is* remarkable is how the Dallas police really
> screwed up big time. And conspiracists, no, it wasn't a cover up, it was
> the Dallas police screwing up, just like the SS agents given the task of
> protecting the president.
>
> The false assumption that conspiracists want to gravitate to is that
> Oswald's murder absolutely wasn't a "screw-up," that mistakes like that
> just don't happen. Truth is, they happen all the time, and by everyone, at
> all levels of business and science, law enforcement, and government. No
> one is exempt.
>
> Just look at the news almost each and every day.
>
> To the poster: those of us who were around and old enough to get what was
> happening all have that horrible event welded into our brains, and nothing
> will take it away. I think this is why so many people so many years later
> feel so strongly about what they thought happened that weekend.
>
> Of course you are free to think as you will, but as David suggested, do
> yourself a favor and at least take the time to read Bugliosi's Reclaiming
> History. It is much, much more than what many conspiracists want to call
> it, as in, just another defender of the government's findings. It takes a
> deep and graphic look into the nuts and bolts of the assassination, and
> thoroughly discusses objectively both sides of the major conspiracy
> theories.
>
> If you want to be "up to date" with just about 99% of the JFK
> assassination and its debate -- and I say "99%" only because the author
> had to finish his book at some point in recent time, but the debate rages
> on obviously -- this is the book you want to study.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
WhiskyJoe
I would like to add some points to the
excellent ones that David Emerling made.
First of all, most people, or a large
percentage of the people, have gotten
their information about the assassination
from the movie JFK. I assume you are aware
of the many falsehoods in the movie.
Now, if you were to make a movie that was
designed to wake up America to the reality
of a terrible conspiracy that killed JFK,
would you put obvious lies in your movie?
If you could make a movie that could stick
to the true, not have any lies, and be very
convincing, would you not make that movie?
Or would you just add some lies into anyway,
even though you didn't have to.
Why is it, after 45 years, we still don't
have a movie that sticks to the truth and
makes a convincing case for conspiracy?
The answer is that, no, you can not imagine
yourself making such a movie with lies when
you could use the truth and be convincing.
And the same is true of anyone else.
I believe one has to be naïve to believe in
conspiracy when it's so obvious that the
people who sell conspiracy theories seem
compelled to present obvious lies.
**************************************************
I note that you said "At the same time I
watched as my father jumped up from his
chair screaming, "He shot the son of a bitch!"
I take it this means your father did not like
Oswald at that point in time. There were tens
of millions of men who hated Oswald. Some of
them often carried guns with them. One of them
saw a large gathering outside a jail in Dallas
and decided to act on impulse.
There is nothing strange about Ruby shooting
Oswald. Of the four accused presidential
assassins in U. S. history, there were four
shots fired at them. One shot fired at
Lincoln's assassin, which was fatal.
One shot fired at Garfield's assassin
on two occasions, both of which happened
to miss. And one shot fired at Kennedy's
assassin, which was fatal.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
<West...@aol.com> wrote in message news:c2b.42e785...@aol.com...
tomnln
davidemerling is Very SHORT on evidence/testimony.
davidemerling believes in "Guilt by Accusation".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dec217fa-0484-478d...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Nora;
I suggest you read the Warren Report First. It contains the
"charges/conclusions" against Oswald.
THEN, read the evidence/testimony in the 26 Volumes.
The evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes PROVE that the authorities/Media
"Tampered with Evidence/Witnesses".
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1514748f-964a-43d0...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
And you are overlooking the fact that Ruby called the police the day
before and warned them that Oswald would be shot. He didn't want any of
his buddies to be shot accidentally. That's why he didn't fire on Friday
night at the news conference.
> afraid that exact scenario would occur -- a pissed off person getting
> revenge at Oswald's deed in killing the president of the U.S. by taking a
> shot. They even got an armored car -- but obviously didn't think through
> the problem of getting Oswald INTO the armored car. They didn't even put a
> flack jacket on him, the likes of which might have, if not stopped a
> bullet completely, prevented the wound from being fatal.
>
If Ruby had seem a flack jacket he would have aimed for the head.
> Really, when you stop and think about it, what happened that Sunday
> morning wasn't all that remarkable considering the heinousness of what
> Oswald did, how it did it, and who he did it to.
>
> I think the thing that *is* remarkable is how the Dallas police really
> screwed up big time. And conspiracists, no, it wasn't a cover up, it was
> the Dallas police screwing up, just like the SS agents given the task of
> protecting the president.
>
HOW did Ruby get into the DPD basement?
yeuhd
> assassination.
Are you speaking literally? Several hundred have been written.
> Anyone who believes that JFK's murder was committed only
> by Oswald is naive. I don't which group or groups were the killers, but
> no one will ever convince me that his murder was not a conspiracy.
Could you list what you believe are the top pieces of evidence that
Oswald did not act alone?
> I would like to know the truth before I die.
The truth is that Oswald alone fired all the shots in Dealey Plaza,
and that there is no reasonable evidence that he was part of any
conspiracy.
I began by reading the Warren Report, and found it a well-explained,
well-reasoned account of the assassination and the assassin. But later
I read Josiah Thompson's "Six Seconds in Dallas", which is a well-
explained, well-reasoned dissent to the lone-gunman theory, and
decided he must be right. I continued reading conspiracy literature,
including Mark Lane's first two books, and saw Lane speak in person.
Lane is very good at casting doubt, but as I later learned, it was
only in a very dishonest manner. He was not interested in the truth as
much as he was in advancing a conspiracy agenda. Then I read David
Lifton's "Best Evidence" after it got a credible review in Time
magazine. By the time I got about two-thirds of the way through the
book, with its tales of surgery being performed on President Kennedy's
corpse while aboard Air Force One, and a shell game involving caskets,
it dawned on me that this man was plain nuts.
Eventually, I realized a pattern in almost all pro-conspiracy
literature (Josiah Thompson excepted): shoddy reasoning, dubious
sources, different standards of evidence for pro-conspiracy evidence
than for anti-conspiracy evidence, amateurs pretending they are
forensic pathologists or ballistic experts, refusal by the authors to
acknowledge how their political biases have affected their research,
lack of a holistic outlook on the evidence, and a lack of plain common
sense.
Anthony Marsh
>
> I would like to add some points to the
> excellent ones that David Emerling made.
>
> First of all, most people, or a large
> percentage of the people, have gotten
> their information about the assassination
> from the movie JFK. I assume you are aware
> of the many falsehoods in the movie.
>
> Now, if you were to make a movie that was
> designed to wake up America to the reality
> of a terrible conspiracy that killed JFK,
> would you put obvious lies in your movie?
>
> If you could make a movie that could stick
> to the true, not have any lies, and be very
> convincing, would you not make that movie?
> Or would you just add some lies into anyway,
> even though you didn't have to.
>
> Why is it, after 45 years, we still don't
> have a movie that sticks to the truth and
> makes a convincing case for conspiracy?
Because the WC defenders can't stick to the truth,
which is conspiracy.
>
> The answer is that, no, you can not imagine
> yourself making such a movie with lies when
> you could use the truth and be convincing.
The Warren Commission is full of lies and you don't mind.
> And the same is true of anyone else.
>
> I believe one has to be na�ve to believe in
> conspiracy when it's so obvious that the
> people who sell conspiracy theories seem
> compelled to present obvious lies.
>
You'd rather believe the government lies.
jas
Yes, I remember the stark contrast of watching the sunny but intensely
solemn events in DC, and the graphic suddenly appearing on the screen that
Oswald was dead. I was glad too.
You're right, after that weekend so many things changed in the handling of
prisoners, and of course, the protection of the prez himself.
jas
Dallas police screw-up.
bigdog
What evidence do you have that Ruby phoned in the threat? How do you know
what Ruby was thinkging? Why don't you just admit you make this stuff up
simply because it fits your fairy tale account of the assassination?
> > afraid that exact scenario would occur -- a pissed off person getting
> > revenge at Oswald's deed in killing the president of the U.S. by taking a
> > shot. They even got an armored car -- but obviously didn't think through
> > the problem of getting Oswald INTO the armored car. They didn't even put a
> > flack jacket on him, the likes of which might have, if not stopped a
> > bullet completely, prevented the wound from being fatal.
>
> If Ruby had seem a flack jacket he would have aimed for the head.
>
Amazing you pretend to know what was in Ruby's mind. If his act was
thought out in advance and his intent was to kill Oswald, why wouldn't he
have shot him in the head anyway. That would be the surest way to kill
him. Choice number two would be to aim for the heart. It you miss the
heart, you still inflict a devastating chest wound with a good chance of
severing a vital artery. Trying to kill someone with a single shot to the
gut is an act of hit and hope if your intent is to kill. Such a shot is
unlikely to produce a kill. In this case, Ruby happened to hit a vital
artery, that was the result of a longshot occurence. It was a pure fluke
that Ruby's shot produced a kill. The type of attack made by Ruby shows no
evidence of being a premeditated attack. It makes no sense for someone
wanting to silence someone else to rely on a single shot to the gut.
> > Really, when you stop and think about it, what happened that Sunday
> > morning wasn't all that remarkable considering the heinousness of what
> > Oswald did, how it did it, and who he did it to.
>
> > I think the thing that *is* remarkable is how the Dallas police really
> > screwed up big time. And conspiracists, no, it wasn't a cover up, it was
> > the Dallas police screwing up, just like the SS agents given the task of
> > protecting the president.
>
> HOW did Ruby get into the DPD basement?
>
Walked in.
davidemerling
> Nora;
>
> I suggest you read the Warren Report First. It contains the
> "charges/conclusions" against Oswald.
>
> THEN, read the evidence/testimony in the 26 Volumes.
>
> The evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes PROVE that the authorities/Media
> "Tampered with Evidence/Witnesses".
What Tom is saying is that the Warren Report concluded the complete
opposite of what their 26 volumes of testimony and evidence indicated.
Let me translate that for you: Tom has found inconsistencies in testimony
and errors in documentation - not a particular great achievement with
something of this magnitude. In fact, I'd be surprised if such errors did
NOT exist. He has focused on those inconsistencies and has concluded that
they are evidence of sinister behavior. In Tom's world, nobody documents
something incorrectly. Also, in Tom's world, witnesses never claim to have
seen things they did NOT see, or, creatively elaborate on what they DID
see - unless that witness happens to be Howard Brennan.
He hyper-focuses on distracting minutia and is apparently unwilling/
incapable of taking a step back and resolving these inconsistencies by
weighing it against a greater body of testimony and evidence that is
telling him something completely different than what he has concluded.
When there are two conflicting documents - he always chooses the
unsubstantiated & uncorroborated one that is inconsistent with a much
larger pool of evidence.
Where there are conflicting testimonies - he always chooses the one that
has conspiratorial overtones - even if it is an isolated observation,
minority observation, or uncorroborated observation.
Oh, if you're looking for a conspiracy - it's easy to find one. But you
have to put your blinders on and ignore much more than you accept. A
creative imagination also helps.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN